Uncovering Lies and Myths in Stem Cell Therapy | Dr Joy Kong

There seemed to be one group that attacked so much actually have affected people's opinion of birth tissue derived stem cells. That's what's interesting because I've been asked so many times in the last five years or so, well, Dr. Kong, I read that there's no live cells in any birth tissue product. And I said, okay, that is a lie. I don't know how to combat a lie. A lie is a lie because there are live cells and we've done third. The cells are alive. I don't know what to say to you. Hello. Welcome back, everybody. So this is Dr. Joy Kahn podcast. I'm here to enhance your health and feeling good. So I have a very illustrious guest with me, Dr. Scott Martin. Dr. Martin, is such an incredible pleasure to have you. You are such a pioneer and incredible colleague. So welcome to my show.

Well, it is a humble honor to be on a podcast with the queen of stem cells herself. Thank you so much for the honor. This has been a long time in coming for the two of us. We've been back and forth. I've kind of seen you from afar and seen your podcast and seen your posts and, and your kind of presence in the community. Build and build and build. And it's just we met in Cancun was absolutely delightful to hear you speak and hear you talk and I'm honored to call you a colleague.

Oh, thank you, Dr. Martin. Well, you actually are the first one that called me the stem cell queen, so I have to credit you for that. Yeah, you said just own it. Okay. So I'm so grateful. You're so very generous and I want to introduce you a little bit to the audience because you are so impressive. So Dr. Scott Martin, M.D. is an interventional pain medicine specialist. So he's renowned for his innovative in the non narcotic treatment of chronic pain. So that's where things started. But Dr. Martin's medical career spans over 24 years and has been at the forefront of patient care consulting and product development. And he published a book, Microdosing Motivation, that reflects his ongoing commitment to innovative healthcare solutions and personal development techniques. And Dr. Martin also made waves in healthcare industry by revolutionizing the $2 billion power wheelchair market through the integration of telemedicine technologies. He's currently consulting for five separate biotech companies. And beyond his clinical endeavors, Dr. Martin is deeply involved in regenerative medicine, medical legal, expert opinion and testimony. So you are a multifaceted doctor and championing holistic approach to health because I think we both agree whatever works. That's what we're going to give patients without question. Yeah. And that's why we're both so passionate about regenerative medicine, because it's one of the safest and most powerful modalities that we've ever encountered in the history of medicine.

You know, I think everyone forgets that before the FDA issued a warning letter in June of 2021, conservatively between 2017 and June of 2021, over 50 million patients were given allogenic biologics, not autologous allogenic biologics, through that span of four or five years. And if you look, there's not a single case report published in any literature demonstrating, at least in the U.S. using U.S. sourced U.S. manufactured products, not a single adverse event over 40, 50 million applications. That's unheard of. Unheard of.

Yeah. That's powerful. You are excluding a company that actually produced faulty product. Right. You're not.

Well, we're, we're, we're not talking about Libyan. And the reason we're not talking about Libyan is that, you know, almost everyone knows that they were one of the, you know, patriarchs early to the market. And because they were early to the market, they had market dominance. Market dominance led to them not being able to fulfill orders, led to them cutting corners and led to them mixing US sourced biologics with international sourced biologics, which led to contamination and unfortunately led to significant adverse events and even patient death. And so I exclude Livyon because they, they ran afoul of AATB certified standards and they let greed supersede the Hippocratic oath and in, you know, the founder's in jail now and so there we go, right?

They bypass the part where they're required to do sterility testing. So they went straight to distribution. Yeah.

Correct. Yeah. I think the temptation is there for almost anyone, Right. To kind of shortcut the process and to say, you know what, I'm sure it's going to be fine. Well, I mean, whether you're doing that in your own office and you know, you haven't cleaned your centrifuge in three or four years, or whether you kind of. I'm not going to pay for those really expensive PRP kits and BMAC kits, you know, I'll just kind of mix it up myself in the office and you don't have a sterile hood and you use semi sterile technique. Right. You know, there's so much risk with autologous biologics anyway. The risk of contamination is tremendous.

Yeah, I would definitely want to get into the subject of autologous versus allogeneic, this distinction. There's so much to talk about. But yeah, just coming back to the faulty product side. I tell people it's like, okay, so some company made, let's say, aspirin. Some company, company and manufacturer made a really bad batch of aspirin. Are you going to ban aspirin use for everybody, for every. The entire medical practice? No, you're not going to do that. So the same is very analogous.

Well, I mean, look at, look at Ultra ER was taken completely off the market and then brought back. Right. Look at Opana er. There were contaminations with Opana er. Right. It was taken completely off the market. Four or six months later, was back on the market. No harm, no foul. Plenty of people overdosing from Opana. You know, I, I think everyone forgets that medicine evolves. And I mean, it wasn't that long ago that the hottest orthopedic surgery was a complete meniscectomy. They just took the whole meniscus out, even if there was a partial tear. And that was based off one, you know, case series where a surgeon thought that patients got pretty good outcomes with that. Well, almost 100% of those patients ended up having joint replacement, complete joint replacement after total meniscectomy. And now nobody does complete meniscectomy for a partial tear anymore. And now it's become kind of a, you know, a teachable moment in orthopedic surgery. But I think something like Livyon, something like complete meniscectomy has to happen so that the market, number one, adjusts. Number two, we have roadblocks. Right? And number three, unless you know how bad it can get, you lack complete understanding and appreciation for how good it can get. I mean, I would never want to be a tissue bank ever. I would never want to have to go through the regulatory processes, screening processes, adjudication process that it would take just to screen tissue. I mean, to be an FDA registered tissue bank is brutally, brutally aggressive. I mean, it makes owning a surgery center look like a walk in the park.

Right, right. And people ask why regenerative medicine is so expensive. Well, that, that's one of the reasons.

It's a huge.

From the start.

Yeah, from the start. You know, a woman decides that she wants to donate her umbilical cord and her placenta for research. Lovely, right? But then the tissue bank that receives that tissue, they have to adjudicate her whole life, every medication she's had, every surgery she's had, any vaccination she's ever had, that's first. I mean, it's hard for you and I to find charts for what a patient did two months ago, let alone a patient's entire life history and every medication and vaccine and everything else they've had. That's just the first step. Just to clear hurdle one, then you have to do all the lab testing for that tissue, evaluate for any and every viral paradigm, Covid paradigm, spike protein paradigm, infectious paradigm. And then, and only then does it clear the tissue bank, the first tissue bank, before it gets sent to the manufacturer. Then the manufacturer does its own set of internal adjudication and usually repeats all of those viral in, you know, chemical screens to make sure the tissue's perfect. And then, and only then does it get manufactured. And then certain companies, after the second round of adjudication, do a third adjudication, a urofins testing by an independent third party to verify that that tissue, before it actually goes to a provider with an npi, is appropriate for patient use. It's an extremely regulatory. Yeah, it's extremely costly. And so this is why, you know, if you're using biologics, you know, you're not going to find, you know, a Biologic for $25. It's just not gonna happen.

Right. And let's. Yeah, since we're here, let's talk about the cost, because that's one main concern that patients have is that, well, it's so expensive. When is it gonna be available for average folks like me? So what, how do you say to that?

Well, let's. Let's just compare apples to apples, all right? The same people that are saying, when's it going to be affordable? To me, are paying $750 for Botox. I mean, 754 Botox that you have to repeat every quarter. Right. Every three months versus an allergenic allograft or an autologous allograft that might forestall joint replacement. You know, one's aesthetic, right? Nobody has to have Botox. And we're not talking about Botox for migraine headaches or tension headaches or other disease paradigms. We're just talking about cosmetic Botox. Right? Nobody has to have that. In certainly the field of biologics, at least at this point in time, is considered elective. Right? Nobody has to have biologics, but I think more and more people, when they appreciate the value that they're actually getting. You're not getting repeated cortisone injections that are expensive through your insurance. Right. That are going to break down your cartilage you're not even getting things like hyaluronic acid, where not a single peer review published, systemic analysis has demonstrated that long term it's better than placebo. Right. We have very good clinical trials, case series, observational research showing that biologics, in particular allogenic biologics. Right. Are dramatically improving both quality of life functional pain scores. Right. And function based scores. This is different than quality of life. This is different than pain. People are functioning better on a regular basis. I think when you weigh the cost of maintaining an independent lifestyle, maintaining your ability to work, if you're the sole provider for your family and if you can afford it, I think the price point's worth it. And I think the price point's worth it for a very simple reason. If it becomes legal everywhere, like marijuana is legal everywhere now, and this is the model that's going to happen and I'll explain that in a minute. But if it becomes legal everywhere and it gets to the point that it becomes affordable in, anybody can do it. You can go to an esthetician and you can get a joint injection. You can go to just anybody on the, on the corner. Right. And like CBD and marijuana shops are all over the place. Right. What's the quality of that? I don't know. Right. I, you, you know, when, when a bud tender, right. Not somebody who's stored, who's grown, poke a lolo on the, the, you know, the slopes of the big island of Hawaii for 50 years when, you know, a budtender whose only experiences that he got high a lot in high school, is giving you recommendations about what to put in your body on a regular basis if this becomes the standard for biologics. I have, I have real and genuine fear about the application of biologics in that regard. But this is what states are looking at. I think that anyone who believes that this new administration, by way of RFK Jr. Or by way of Trump, they're going to wave a magic wand and say everyone can do stem cell medicine, it's going to be legal everywhere. I think they're completely wrong and I think you and I agree on that. There's not going to be any sweeping federal regulation that says anyone can do stem cell medicine and they can do it on anyone anywhere, and, and we're going to pay for it. Right? I mean, you know, doge is there stripping away cost, firing droves of, you know, folks and programs and things that the government doesn't need to be involved in? I think very, very legitimately that the regulation of biologics is going to become a state level scenario like it already is, you know, in the state of Utah, where Utah passed a bill that you can practice stem cells, you can use peptides, and the medical board's not going to chase you down and throw you in, you know, jail or put you on probation for the standard practice of medicine. I think that's a good thing.

Nevada also did that.

Correct. Florida's looking to do the same. Right. Where they're, they're passing state level laws where as long as you're not making outrageous claims that you're going to cure als, you're going to cure Ms. Right. And that it's within the scope of your practice, that if you want to use peptides and you want to use biologics, whether they're autologous or allogeneic, that you're going to be able to do that within the scope of your practice and you're going to be able to practice medicine. I think that's a good thing.

Yeah. And I think another reason that the cost is higher is because it's not quite accepted by the governing bodies of medicine. Not quite yet. So there's a risk the doctors are taking on when they do this. Right. So there's a sense. And also malpractice insurance coverage, that's a challenge for them too.

It's an extreme challenge. Well, I mean, as you know personally and as I know personally, there's a good old boys group, right. That for many, many years has beat the same old worn out drum, Right. That the only FDA approved biologics are autologous biologics. And you and I have some very personal thoughts about that. Right. Having been both personally attacked. Right. Because when you dig into the literature and you get granular in the literature, it's not there. The medicine isn't there. It's completely disingenuous the way it's being presented. And there are companies out there making lots of money, lots of money to obfuscate, to help people intentionally misunderstand. That's a statement used by a former CEO of mine and I've always liked that statement. So that people intentionally misunderstand the actual regulations. These folks beat the same drum over and over again, attack you attack me in their echo chambers, right. On LinkedIn and Facebook and things like that where, you know, they get the pats and the accolades from, you know, the people that are paying them, usually contractually, because these companies make you sign a contract to pay them every month for marketing and everything else. And so you are literally under contract. And so it's those very same folks who are under contract with these companies that attack you and attack me. Yeah, because we're lead goose. Right. Somebody's gotta take the headwind. Right.

And really the attack only comes from one group, to be honest. I mean there are different ways of doing regenerative medicine. Right. It started with bone marrow approach and then the fat derived stem cell therapy came onto board and then the umbilical cord, the birth tissue blossomed. And as I kind of predicted some eight years back, that is going to just gradually take over because it is more efficacious and is actually safer. But because of the evidence amounting evidence of that, we are encroaching on the vested interest of people who are doing other forms. But most people in the group are very collegial. Right. They respect evidence, they respect whatever that may help the patient most and they will listen to evidence. But there seemed to be one group that attacked so much that actually have affected people's opinion of birth tissue derived stem cells. And that's what's interesting. And because I've been asked so many times in the last five years or so, well, Dr. Kong, I read that there's no live cells in any birth tissue product. And I said okay. And that is a lie. I don't know how to combat.

Lie.

Yeah, I don't know how to combat a lie. A lie is a lie because there are life cells and we've done third party testing. The cells are alive. I don't know what to say to. There are life cells. So. But the. Because of certain group that's attacking this entire industry of birth tissue. I don't know why, I guess they must feel so threatened by the birth tissue sector that there has to be vicious attack where frank out lies are made. And then you actually uncovered these lies and actually dissecting them of what? From published articles that were made by.

From their own published articles. That's right.

So I want, I want to ask you to, to kind of dissect it for people because I can't stand lies being propagated.

So you stated that they have vested interest. Right. And so when we're talking about vested interest and that's what it is, right? You've got an old guard that's made a lot of money, a lot of money with autologous biologics and they padded their literature. I mean I've published, you know, you've been around research for a long time, read a ton of articles, we share articles back and forth. Right. You Send me stuff. And you're like, look, I found this great article. I send you articles, right? We both read a lot. All right, in what you're seeing is the death knell of the autologous biologic industry. And they're literally.

Just want to interject one second, just in case my audience doesn't know the difference between autologous and allogenic. So autologous is using stem cell product or regenerative medicine products from your own body, and allogeneic is using it from another human being. So I just want to interject for one second.

My apologies. Thank you for the clarification. So companies that are selling, selling PRP kits, selling bone marrow kits, selling stromovascular fat kits, you know, they're literally hanging on by their fingernails and their toenails, and they're on the side of a skyscraper, slowly falling down the skyscraper, while all the allogenic and birth tissue folks are in a beautiful encased glass elevator riding to the top floor, right? And this is the scenario that's happening in. They're screaming and they're banging on the windows as they're sliding down the skyscraper. On the outside in that building is patient outcomes. That building is patients improving. Now they're banging on the outside not because they want better patient outcomes, because they want cash. It's messing with their cash. It's messing with their Ferrari or it's messing with their yacht and their plans to sail around the world for the rest of their life, right? And so they go and they attack folks who, who aren't selling an agenda, but who are actually trying to get better patient outcomes by way of education for providers. Look, at the end of the day, medicine operates on one paradigm. It's see one, do one, teach one. They don't operate on that paradigm. And the reason they don't operate on that paradigm is very evident because they don't publish the full long form of their own research. And so I, I just had enough. And we'll get to the entity that you're talking about. It's a PRP company led by a singular pain doctor who's made an entire life out of attacking his colleagues, usually colleagues he doesn't know personally, but who just happen to be in states where he's building a franchise. And I personal knowledge of him filing anonymous complaints to take out a competitor in a state where he and his group built a new clinic and wrote horrible, horrible anonymous complaints to the medical board of that state just to see if they could get that doctor put on probation. So Then they could go and in a public way, on LinkedIn, attack that Dr. For having then put on probation. They literally start the fire, right? And then they call the police right in the fire department. And when the fire department puts out the fire, even though they're the one that started it, they blame the arson on somebody else. And then when they've yelled loud enough and screamed loud enough that that other person started the fire and they get arrested for starting the fire, they go back to their keyboards and become keyboard warriors and tell everyone about how awful that person was for starting the fire, that they're the ones that actually started. It's terrible, it's dishonest. But let's talk about it in detail. So in an article published in 2021 by a group of doctors, they looked at the application of bone marrow aspirate concentrate in the quality of that product. They also looked at five different companies that were selling cryopreserved Wharton's jelly products. And I'm not going to get into the nitty bitty pieces.

And Wharton's jelly is from umbilical core tissue. So that's a birth tissue product.

So Wharton's jelly is the collagen based structural tissue inside the umbilical cord that supports the umbilical vessels, the three umbilical vessels, and has a mechanical function and allows the umbilical cord to be a conduit so that blood flow can move from mother to fetus. And without that structural tissue, life would cease because the umbilical cord, with a 5 or 14 pound baby swinging and kicking and jumping and twisting, that cord would kink or it would bend and blood flow would stop and the fetus would die. But because that Wharton's jelly, that structural tissue that histologically is type 1 collagen, a little type 2 collagen, type 3, 5, 7, 9, and very high concentrations of hyaluronic acid. Because that structural tissue is so robust and has such a strong extracellular matrix network, it prevents the umbilical cord from kinking and preserves life. Right. It serves as a wonderful conduit for the transmission of blood flow, oxygen nutrients to babies so baby can grow. That tissue from five different labs was analyzed by these authors. Right. And to say that they put their thumb on the scale is a gross understatement. But long and short, these authors decided that they would process the Wharton's jelly tissue in a completely separate manner than they would bone marrow tissue. Now, standard processing techniques, you know, were kind of used for, you know, Wharton's jelly, you know, they kind of cooked the Wharton's jelly. They added an enzymatic digestion agent to kind of digest the Wharton's jelly. Their ration behind that was that they needed to break up the extracellular matrix. But I mean, if you're going to enzymatically digest tissue and you're not going to test that enzymatic digestive agent to see if it's going to just simply kill mesenchymal stem cells and you don't know that ahead of time, why would you add it?

But they were getting products that's already processed and made. Right. The.

This is already, this is already processed made tissue. Right. And it's also, it's also not hyper concentrated tissue. Right. So they took ready made, ready to go processed tissue from three different labs. Right. And they compared it to tissue that was fresh, Right. From the human body and hyper concentrated bone marrow that was then cryopreserved for a period of time. Right. So they took cryopreserved Wharton's jelly that had already been processed and was in small doses. Right. Thawed it, cooked it, enzymatically digested it and after doing all that, still found live viable cells in the product. Still found mesenchymal stem cells from all five companies that. From all five companies.

Yeah.

The first line in the discussion of their article stated that they found live cells. But what they found, how could they.

Say everywhere that there's absolutely no live cells?

Well, they qualified that they didn't find the live cells that they wanted to find which were, you know, colony forming units that were fibroblast, you know, related. Right. And this was their big tell. Right. That they didn't find the specific fibroblast colony forming units, which are precursors for MSCs. That's fine. Right. And it's an accepted research tool to look for, you know, fibroblast based colony forming units. But that's not the same thing as not finding mesenchymal stem cells. They found live cells, they found MSCs. What they didn't find were these fibroblast based colony forming units which they say.

Will be a sign of the health and strength of these cells.

Sure. The ability of the MSC to actually go through collagenic differentiation. Well, when you look carefully at how the bone marrow was processed, these authors actually don't tell you how they did it. They actually cite another reference. So they don't actually, in the long form tell you how they process tissue. They actually give a reference for how they process the tissue. And when you go to that reference and you find the article, which is very hard to find, Right. And you read the article thoroughly, what you see is, well, they spiked the bmac, they hyper concentrated the bmac, and.

After they plated the BMAC concentrate from the bone marrow.

From bone marrow, that's the autologous bone marrow that they were using as a comparative. Right. They spiked the product with fibroblast growth factors not once, not twice, but three times. And then when they plated it on the little plates to actually grow these colony forming units, they changed out the culture median two days later for the bone marrow product, which is standard, acceptable practice. But they didn't do that with the Wharton's jelly that they were trying to compare with.

Right?

Yeah. And so, you know, if you're going to compare apples to apples and you're going to say, you know, this bunch of apples over here, right, we're going to compare, we're going to compare apples from whole foods to apples from sprouts. All right. If you let the apples from sprouts cook at 37 degrees Fahrenheit, right, which is 98.5 degrees, you know, and even in this doctor's rebuttal, he says, oh, we didn't cook them at, you know, anything more than 68 degrees. I don't know, his math must be bad because 37 degrees Celsius is 98.5 degrees. Right. So he lies even in his own rebuttal. All right, so we're going to cook the apples from sprouts, right? We're going to enzymatically digest the apples from sprouts, right? And you know, we're not going to like refrigerate them, right? We're not going to like nourish them.

Or I think they were also centrifuging it and taking a nutritious portion away from.

Yeah, yeah. Then we're, we're also going to, you know, we're not going to mist them every day. You know, we're going to put them under like the heat lamps that we keep, like the rotisserie chicken. Basically, that's what they did. Right. And then over here at, over here at Whole Foods, right, You know, they put them on a silver platter and, you know, the, the lighting was perfect and the temperature was perfect. And they made sure that, you know, that somebody waved, you know, a palm frond to like slowly circulate the temperature around each apple. And then after, you know, testing the tooth, they're like, wow, these apples from sprouts are all disgusting and molded and gross.

Extra Extra nutrients to make sure these apples stays really fresh and good.

Yeah, yeah. And Whole Foods, right? And then they say, well, only buy our apples from Whole Foods. Because when we did the internal comparison, Scouts honor, right? Scout's honor, Girl Scouts honor, right? We did the exact same thing, right? When they're really crossing their fingers behind their back and giving you the finger at the same time because they completely lied through their entire paper, right?

Until somebody actually has the wherewithal to look into it that you actually, because you're so familiar with scientific methods and, and, and publications that you, you delve deeper because actually calling on it because a lot of people just took them at their face value. They were like, we don't know how they came to this conclusion, but they did something. Of course, if you're in the allergenic space, you're, you're dumbfounded as the, I don't know what they did, I don't know, whatever they did somehow gave them that conclusion, but it doesn't make any sense. But for people who are laymen, they're like, well, see, these people are scientific. They did their study, so it must be real. So it takes somebody like you to actually go deeper into the methodology and find out what happened.

Well, in, you know, I, I do a lot of lecturing, I do a lot of speaking, and what I tell almost everyone is this, right? Your receipt is your biggest asset. And the receipt in any published article is actually not the abstract, it's not the introduction and it's not the discussion. The receipt is in the methods. The receipt is actually reading line by line through the methods to see how they arrived at their results. Because if you don't know how they arrived at their results and you can't base that in an objective, comparative way to something else, right, well, then you're not going to get the same outcome. Now, in layman's terms, what this means is if I process tissue one way and you process tissue in a completely separate place in the country, we should end up getting the same result. But I can tell you what, right? If you're looking at the literature, where the literature is saying that if I take bone marrow from a 74 year old's hip, according to these authors, right, these stem cell experts in the autologous space who work and sell stem cell kits from the same company who say, hey, look, if you take a biologic from a 74 year old patient and you spin it down in the centrifuge in your office and you inject it into their grade 3 grade 4 knee, meaning significantly degenerated knee, you are going to get great outcomes. My issue with that is it is an all out bald faced lie. Because the very literature that they published didn't do that. The literature that they published, they spiked that bone marrow with fibrin based growth factors multiple times, right? Cultured it in enriched cultured media, changed out the cultured media, right, to give it even more nutrients and then showed that it was beneficial in regenerating collagen. Well, I'm sorry, how do you do that in the office?

Right? And you said they use fetal bovine serum, which is not even allowed in medical practice.

If a patient comes to see you in the office and the patient states to you, joy, I've got a bad knee and I'm the only breadwinner in my family, I have four kids and if I can't work, I can't feed my family, not I can't go on vacation to Hawaii, not I can't pay my Mercedes bill, I can't feed my family. And this is what bothers me to my core because this literature has been published so maliciously. You may, having read this PRP literature, having read this bone marrow literature, think in your mind as a doctor, because of this BMAC boys mafia, right, who attack everyone in the allergenic space. Well, it's totally fine for me to charge this patient that can barely feed their family $10,000 for bone marrow. And you think because of the manipulated publications that you're going to give that patient a superlative outcome, that you're going to take tissue from a bad hip and without any augmentation whatsoever, put it into a bad knee in somehow that patient's going to get a great outcome. Because just reading their literature and listening to their lies, right, their manipulated literature and their manufactured lies, that that patient's going to get a good outcome. And what they're not telling you is that in their published literature they're using things like fetal bovine serum in fibroblast growth factors, in cultured mediums, repeated exchanges of cultured mediums to get the great cartilage based outcomes that they're seeing in publishing, but you don't have the ability to do that in your practice. And so when you charge that patient $10,000 and they take money out of their 401k and then they get a persistent diffusion or they don't get better, and the only thing you as a clinician can then say is I'm sorry, it should have worked because the literature says it should have worked. And nobody was there to point out that that literature was manipulated, that the outcomes of that literature were intentionally manipulated to sell more BMAC kits. Who loses? Well, the company doesn't lose. They sold that BMAC kit. The doctor doesn't lose because they got paid $10,000. The person who loses is that patient who's now out of pocket 10 grand, who's now no better than they were. Right. And who's now family is much worse off because now they're even more destitute. In the only person in the family who's working is now less able to work because now he's behind the eight ball an additional $10,000 and he's not anymore. He's not any better functionally. I mean, this is what bothers me most for some of these doctors who are selling, you know, autologous biologics and who are beating up you and beating up me and beating up their colleagues. Right. It's an academic game for them. And that's all it is, it's an academic game. Right. Well, you know, we have literature on our side because there are a hundred and some odd randomized controlled trials. What are the results of those randomized controlled trials? What do they actually say? Well, they don't talk about that. They just say, well, there's 100 randomized controlled trials for PRP, so you should use PRP. Well, there are a thousand randomized controlled trials using narcotics for chronic pain. Did they work? No. Narcotics, chronic narcotics never improve patients better than placebo with chronic pain. Just because the randomized control trials exist doesn't mean we should throw ourselves headlong on the narcotic pyre and burn our practices and burn our patients to death. Right?

Yeah.

And everyone's moved away from the prescription of narcotics. Right. But we're still, what? We're still, you know, aggressively attached to autologous biologics because of manipulated literature. Look, at some point there's going to be a wake up call, right?

Yeah. And it's not just the attachment. First of all, and I want to mention the fetal boa serum, you're saying that there is a high prevalence of prion existence in the serum, that's why they're not allowed.

Sure. So just so everyone understands, beetle bovine serum comes from cow fetuses, bovine fetuses, Right at the time of birth. And they literally bleed them dry. Right. So it comes from actually the fetus, almost like fetal birth tissue right at the time of birth. But the problem with fetal bovine serum, which is extremely robust in growth factors and proteoglycans and cytokines, Right? It's extremely robust. The problem is that there's an extremely high prevalence of prion disease in cows. We've all heard of mad cow disease, right? The very same prions that are responsible for mad cow disease are found in a lot of this fetal bovine serum. And so about 80% of it has to be discarded because it has prions in it. So what fetal bovine serum is left is extremely expensive and still limited almost exclusively to research purposes. Right? Because anyone getting fetal bovine serum, right, notwithstanding the fact that it's serum, it's blood, there's going to be Rh antigens and, you know, graft first host issues, right? There's still a very real possibility of giving a human prion disease. Parkinson's is a prion disease. Lewy body dementia, prion disease, mad cow disease, prion disease. There's a very high possibility of giving patients that if you give them fetal bowline serum. But that's what these researchers are using to spike autologous products like prp, like bone marrow and even stromovascular fat to show that these products end up regenerating collagen in shoulders and knees and hips. All right? You don't see that in allogenic birth tissue literature. In allogenic birth tissue literature, they're not spiking it with anything. They're not adding any supplement. They're just simply applying the biologic and then observing outcomes and getting these tremendous outcomes. There's none of this aggressive manipulation. There's none of this supplementing, there's none of this padding results and then obfuscating those results by hiding the full form publication behind paywalls and behind membership fees, so that anybody looking would see that literature published by that BMAC company and would think, looking at the abstract in, you know, what's being said about it by its chief scientist, who's an owner in the company as well, that, you know what BMAC's amazing PRP is amazing in, because there's no live cells in an allergenic product. I shouldn't even use it. Because the guy who's an owner in the company and who profits off the sale of PRP kits and BMAC kits.

Says, so I actually have different patients. I have had patients who, because they saw these reports from this BMAC promoting company that they say there's no live cells. So then they steered away from getting treatment from potentially much more effective method. But I also have some patients who said, well, I Looked into the person that's saying all these bad things, and I realized that he's the owner of this, this, this chain, right? This, this medical chain, national chain, international chain of clinics.

Yes.

Yeah. And I realized what's behind this and the ulterior motive. They said, well, I'm not buying it because I can see very clearly what this is all about. So who are very discerning that they could tell. And I, and I want to let people know that it costs tremendous amount of money for doctors to join this chain. Right. It's, it's not cheap at all from what, what I've heard is $100,000 to just join the group, to be part of this. And then you have to invest in the, in the equipment and, and the usables, reusable disposables. So you've invent. If a doctor has invested so much into something, they want to get the most out of it, right. There's an inherent drive to continue along this line of treatment because they want to recoup all their money. Because once they recruit the initial investment, the profit margin, you just, you just heighten skyrockets. Yeah. So now they want to stay, they want to stay in this, this network, even if there are better treatments available. And that's a sad truth.

Well, you know, the fortunate thing is this, right? We all now have information at our fingertips. We have a, we have a, you know, a supercomputer in our pockets, right? That's number one. Number two, the United States is a big country and there's a million, literally a million medical providers between podiatrists, MDs, DOs, naturopathic doctors, nurse practitioners, PAs, podiatrists. There are a million medical providers out there, right? And so if you're being, as a patient, pushed aggressively into this scenario or that scenario, and you're being told by somebody aggressively, hey, look, this is the only way to go. Everything else is trash. Nothing else works. Do your own research. Read as much as you can. Right. I mean, Dr. Google isn't all that bad. It may not be as granular as you would like, but, you know, you're available, I'm available. You get, you get inquiries on your website, in, on social media, all the time from patients. So do I. Right. In. Because you and I are similarly invested in patients getting better, the patient outcome, right? We have no problem at all. I've heard of that doctor in Minnesota. They're fabulous. I've heard of that doctor in Southern California. They're fabulous. I've heard of that doctor in Texas. They're fabulous, right? And we give our opinion because at the end of the day, and I know it's true for you, because we've had this discussion, it's not about us. We don't have to be the champion. We don't have to make the patient better. All we care about is that the patient got better. And however the patient got better, whether it's autologous or allogeneic, right? All we care about is that patients are getting better. Right? But somebody has to again be lead goose. They have to take the headwind, they have to take the beatings so that we can simply have a conversation about this, an open dialogue about this, and look at it with eyes wide open instead of eyes wide shut. And that's all these bone marrow and PRP companies want. They want an eyes wide shut approach to biologics. Listen to what we say, but for the love of God, don't open your eyes and actually read our literature, our long form literature. And then even if you've read it, don't believe your eyes. Listen to what we say, right?

I know it's shocking because I initially, the first, my first taste of personal attack was when I published this video of my lecture explaining the differences of different sources of stem cells. So I compared. Not my opinion. I. Not once did I talk about my opinion. All I did was citing research articles. I just went one article after another after. I wanted to show what the research from around the world has shown. So 40 minutes, I just article after article. So I published it because I wanted people to know what's a. What evidence is there, right? There's this controversy in the field. Some say only bone marrow is the best, some say only the fat is the best. And some say the umbilical cord. Let, let's find out what have people studied and found out. That's all I showed. And boy, was I getting this incredible attack.

It's like information's dangerous, information is dangerous.

And the attack became so personal, I, I just, I was dumbfounded.

Well, when you can't attack the science, you have to attack the person, right? And so, and that's, and that's what you'll notice. These are very personal attacks from these companies. They come after you personally, right? You're this, you're that. Nobody's perfect.

Yeah. Someone said, I can't believe she's a graduate of ucla. I'm so ashamed that she's my alumni.

I'm sorry. Because UCLA is super easy to get into. Right? I mean, you know, you apply on the back of a napkin and just walk into ucla, right? I mean, UCLA is basically Ivy League on the west coast, right? I mean, it's incredibly competitive to get into ucla. Look, I think a couple things. Number one, frail egos, right? Tremendously frail egos for a group of folks who were on the cutting edge of medicine and now are finding themselves relegated to the trash heap in the side, right? They've just been pushed to the side. You were the classic car that everybody loves, right? Well, now you're the classic car that doesn't run all that well and it makes a lot of smog and smoke and breaks down in the middle of the highway. And you know what? We just want something that's easier, more affordable, and much more reliable, right? And so while you're the classic car and you kind of need to look at, right, you're definitely not, you know, the new, whatever, Ferrari, new Lamborghini, new Aston Martin, right? You're kind of a, you know, you're a 1969 MGB, right? You're this, this kind of neat, kind of cool car. When I was first into practice and I could afford, you know, a $5,000 convertible, but now you're just, you're a ton of maintenance and a ton of effort and a ton of time for not a lot of enjoyment, right? Sorry. I like classic cars, right? But. So that's it, right? Number one, frail ego. Number two, I'm sorry, professional jealousy, right? Professional jealousy. They're not part of the conversation anymore because they're yelling and screaming about something that people did a long time ago. And nobody wants to look over their shoulder in medicine, right? And look at what we used to do.

If they have true integrity, I mean, to me, it's like this no brainer. If there's something that may be better, I owe it to my patients to find out, is it true?

How can I incorporate?

Because that's what I said on LinkedIn when I was attacked. I said, did you watch my video? Did you look at the evidence? Can you please comment on evidence? Let's talk about the evidence. Like, show me the contrary again.

Of course they're going to attack you personally, right? Because they don't want to talk about the evidence because theirs is manipulated. Look, when you live in a glass house, right, you can throw all the stones you want as long as no one throws a stone back. And so they were raining hail on everyone and anyone who even thought about looking at their glass house, right? And now that folks like you have thrown a pebble or two, folks like me have thrown a brick or two. Right. They really don't want anybody looking through their windows. Right. Because all you have to do is look at their literature, the whole body of literature, and it's not a glass house, it's a house of cards. Right. And it all falls down as soon as you take that one simple card away. In the card that you take away is an apples to apples and honest apples to apples comparison of what the product is and the actual outcomes they get.

Yeah. And also, not only they hide behind so called literature, all these studies that they were using, as, you know, the power studies, their own studies went behind their sales, but they also cite regulatory rulings or what the FDA says as the basis of attack. And that's very interesting. I would love for you to break that down.

We're going to dispel this really fast. All right. Because I know people only have so much attention. Let's just go through it really quick. All human cell and tissue products are cleared by the fda. Cleared meaning that any physician can use them. Autologous, meaning bone marrow, prp, stromovascular fat, or alogen amp, meaning placental derived, umbilical cord derived. All of them are cleared by the fda. Bone marrow aspirate, prp, stromovascular fat are FDA cleared kits. They're plastic kits cleared by the fda. When you take that plastic kit or that plastic tube and you mix it with blood, bone or fat, it now becomes a human cell and tissue product. Regulated no different than umbilical cord tissue. Exactly the same as umbilical cord tissue. And none of it can be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease. As a matter of fact, you can only use prp, bone marrow and stromovascular fat under an exemption, a same day surgical exemption. Because in the words of Peter Marx himself, and he's on video saying this bone marrow is more than minimally manipulated. Blood is more than minimally manipulated. Right. And so a manipulated product can only be used under regulatory guidelines section 361 if it's done same day under a same day surgical exemption. So the products that they're saying are FDA approved are not. They're FDA cleared. The products that they're saying can be used to treat disease can't. The products that they're talking about are FDA cleared plastic kits, not biologics. And they're comparing an FDA cleared kit to umbilical cord tissue. Right. That's what they're doing. Right. And so whatever regulatory leg they think they have to stand on is again, intentional misinformation. It's a lie, and it's so that they can obfuscate from a position of perceived authority. These are folks that are keyboard warriors that aren't busy in their medical practice that are attacking me, Attacking you, attacking other providers, Right, because they couldn't compete in the open marketplace of actually taking care of patients. They couldn't get good outcomes. Right? And so they spend most of their day because they have so much of it, attacking people and being kind of a quasi watchdog for the fda. Hey, look, they're doing something that's not right, in my opinion. Right, because the regs don't support what they're saying.

The FTA clearly stated in their guidelines, by the way. They were giving guidelines. These are not enforceable laws. These are just some group of people come together and believe this is how things should go. But there's no binding power. But they can certainly scare people because they are a government agency. I mean, that's really. But it's not a law. So. But the guideline says, okay, if you don't manipulate your products, and manipulation means using enzymes, growing the cells into huge numbers, right? Using different chemicals, you may change the nature of these tissue. Now you have created a drug. And if you're creating a drug, oh, now you've come under our jurisdiction, you're creating a drug, then you have to go through the drug approval process. You have to pay us a lot of money, and we have to tell you what, we're going to tell you what you can cannot do, whether or not we're going to approve it. However, most of the treatments of stem cell therapy in the country right now is actually using the status of these cells, or exosomes, et cetera, as a transplant product. So, meaning that they are minimally manipulated and they're used for the same purpose of how they were in the body before. So that's the guideline. However, the governance of medical practice is not under FDA jurisdiction. To be honest, doctors like you and I, right, Even though I didn't go through the medical training as a surgeon, under my license, I can do surgery. Under my license, I can inject anything that I think is beneficial for the human health as long as I can justify it.

Correct. So this is the practice of medicine. Right. And the practice of medicine is really determined at the state level. Right. Do you have a license in your state? Are you practicing within the scope of your education, within the scope of your practice? And there are plenty of people with, you know, internal medicine residencies. That do surgery because they did a fellowship in surgery or they do dermatology because they did a fellowship in dermatology. Right. There are plenty of surgeons who take a weekend course in supernumerary training and they learn different surgical techniques that they weren't taught in residency or fellowship. Right. And this is continuing education, this is what doctors do on a regular basis to stay, number one, abreast of, you know, current concepts in medicine. But number two, to be able to offer better surgical medical, in this case regenerative medicine techniques to maintain patients quality of life and improve patients, you know, outcomes. The nuance here. Right. Is the application of a biologic under experimental or under cosmetic use. Right. Versus the prescribing or the application of a drug. And I think where this gets lost in translation is the off label application. Gabapentin is one of the most prescribed drugs, 351 drugs in medicine. It's prescribed for everything, everything from neuropathy to post herbetic neuralgia to trigeminal neuralgia to failed back syndrome, you know, headaches. It's prescribed for so many things, it's indicated for very few. Right. But doctors can practice medicine. If you feel like it's going to improve a patient's quality of life, you'll use those. But there's no proof that these drugs ever cured anything. No one's ever been cured of diabetes with insulin. But we prescribe it for diabetics all the time.

And the standard care is established through evidence. Right. We're all talk about evidence based medicine. When it becomes accepted is when there's evidence in the literature for the use of these whatever substances. So and that's what I'm going by is by published literature because there's been so much study.

Correct. Not just published literature, but the clinical application of these biologics has become commonplace, has become, you know, community based. And that's really the standard standards. Community standard. Right. In the community is the community using biologics to improve the quality of patients life. Well, the community has used biologics for over 50 years. Allergenic biologics for over 50 years. Right. PRP, bone marrow aspirate, stromovascular fat, became FDA cleared as medical devices by way of community use. They got 510s as medical devices because they didn't go through the 351 route, the drug route. They were grandfathered as a medical device, meaning that they'd been used historically in medicine, I think prior to something like 1960 or 1969, whatever it is. Right. Well Allogenic biologics have been used since World War II. Right. They've been used since World War II for all sorts of things. We've been doing tissue transplants since World War II. All right, there's a wonderful treatise.

What was the first case?

I'm trying to go back to first case. And I don't think there's ever like one single case. But I mean, we've been using allogenic biologics for years and years. 50 years. Right.

Well, I know the Africans have been using it for wound healing, using the amniotic membrane. Right. Placenta slab on.

Hundreds of years. Hundreds of years. Right, hundreds of years. So, I mean, there's no published cases of that. But I mean, you know, there's living linguistic, passed on historical knowledge of using the placenta for wound healing and those type things for. For hundreds of years. You know, the use of allogenic biologics really took off in the 70s and 80s. Right. And although it was initially used for wounds because it maintains wound environment, it serves as barrier recovering. Those things are wonderful. Right. But I mean, if you look histologically at. And you know, I tell everybody that I talk to. The application of biologics isn't rocket science. It just isn't. It's not waving a magic wand and casting a Harry Potter spell. It really isn't. Right. When we're young, the body has regenerative capacity. It's greater. But the injuries that we suffer are soft tissue injuries. Let's just take the knee, right? The internal structures in the knee are type 1 and type 3 collagen. The Menisci, the ligaments. Right. The articular cartilage is type 2. Almost everyone, when they fall, their injuries when they're young are type 1 and type 3 collagen. So if you got PRP when you were young or you're a young adult, that's kind of okay because the growth factor in PRP and bone marrow is type 1 collagen. But as we get older, with cumulative trauma injury, contraction of the joint capsule, collapse of the joint space, contraction of the synovial fluid, you start to get damage to type 2 collagen. Type 2 collagen is the articular cartilage that covers, say, the femoral condyles and the tibial plateau. If the body innately was able to heal itself with the growth factors that were in blood and in bone, why do we get degenerative joint disease in the first place? If blood and bone marrow were so great at regenerating, type 2 collagen why does arthritis and degenerative joint disease exist? I'm sorry? The primary collagen subtype in blood is type 1. The primary collagen subtype in bone is type 1. But a complicated injury of the knee, Type A, grade 3, grade 4 OA, is a tricollagen issue. It's type 1 collagen degeneration, type 3 collagen degeneration, type 2 collagen degeneration. And the body, other than the nucleus pulposus and other than maybe the amniotic membrane and umbilical cord, are the only sources of type 2 collagen in the body. Right. And we don't see a lot of stem cells migrating from nucleus pulposus to the knee joint when you've got degeneration. Doesn't happen. Right. And we're not eating type 2 collagen on a regular basis, so we're not getting it from our diet. And so when you're looking at the perfect allograft, the perfect structural tissue transplant, it's hard to come closer to, to a perfect tissue transplant than something like umbilical cord tissue that histologically is type 1 collagen, some type 2 collagen, type 3 collagen and hyaluronic acid, the primary cartilagen based collagen based components of a joint itself. This is why they work. It's not magic, it's a supplement. It's a perfect supplement. You know, I say this all the time. If you have osteoporosis, you need calcium, magnesium and vitamin D, along with load bearing exercise and inappropriate gut and everything else, but still you need calcium, magnesium and vitamin D. If you have osteoporosis and I just give you vitamin D, tons and tons and tons of vitamin D, you're still going to fracture. Well, if you have degeneration in the knee of type 1 collagen, type 3 collagen and type 2 collagen, and I give you tons and tons and tons of type 1 collagen. Is the progression of that joint going to worsen? You betcha. So what are we doing? What are we doing using autologous biologics that only have type 1 collagen in them, that aren't artificially supported with beetle, bilvine serum and fibroblast based growth factors. Right. Because we don't have that in our common practice. What are we really doing to a patient with a grade 3, grade 4 OA knee by putting blood or bone marrow or fat in that knee?

I'm sure you know all form of stem cell therapy actually work to some extent. So which is why every form has flourished in its own right. But what I feel is that there's different degrees of success. So the older you are, the less success you're going to get from your own body's stem cells. The autologous source. Yeah, so? So, but also, Even if you're 20 years old, your, the stem cells from you is nowhere in comparisons from, compared to what we can get from the birth tissue. There's just no comparison because I've compared them. So if I give you bone marrow derived or even fat derived stem cells and I can give you a 50% chance of improvement, but here I discovered these birth tissue cells that maybe I can give you 70, 75 or 80% is. I feel it's my obligation as a doctor to provide that for you and.

More importantly, just at minimum provide the information. Look, every doctor patient relationship is that it's a relationship, right? And if you have the information, you should at least proffer the information. Look, we have some options for you, right? You injured your knee, right? We know that cortisone can accelerate joint degeneration. We've had that information since Radiology 2020. We know the hyaluronic acid doesn't do much other than kind of lubricate the joint for three or four weeks, provide some tiny measure of pain relief, but it's not going to do anything structurally for the joint, right? So we're really left with the application of biologics. Now, you're young, you're healthy, you don't have any diseases, your immune response is robust, right? We could probably use something like a PRP, to be honest, in a 20 year old, putting a trail car the size of my finger in their hip once or twice and hammering it into their hip and coring out bone, you know, ethically do I think that makes a lot of sense to potentially destabilize the pelvis in a 20 year old? I don't think so personally, but hey, look, that's just my opinion, right? But I mean, I think a responsible provider should at least present the information. One option is to take blood out of your arm, spin it down, it's going to have some fibrin in it, which is fine because you're young and you're healthy, right? But another option, similarly priced option, right, Is to use a bit more robust growth factor complex from an umbilical cord source that's ethically sourced, ethically made compliant with American Academy of Tissue Banking standards here in the US and, you know, what do you think? And then at least have an honest discussion about what's available. You know, we do that with everything. Right. If a patient's going to go on chemotherapy, you weigh the pros and the cons of this chemotherapy versus that. If you're going to put a patient on an antibiotic, you weigh the pros and cons of this antibiotic versus that.

As you're a part of your informed consent, you're supposed to discuss alternative treatments.

Exactly. But in the field of biologics, we can only talk about PRP or BMAC or svf. We can't talk about allergenic. Right. We can't give a patient an option, we can't present the alternative and in an informed manner with an adult who's able to consent themselves, come to a reasonable conclusion between the two of us about what might be better for that patient and what might be better and what might be best for that patient.

Yeah, great point. And then also one thing I think is not discussed at all is, well, potential side effect, not to mention the invasiveness of the autologous method, you know, either liposuction or drilling into a bone. But it also, it does, it takes away your stem cells. Right. It does deplete your own stem cell supply in a sense, because once you activate and aw those cells and you put it back into the body, they do have a finite lifespan, just like the allogeneic source I put in your body. Most of them will fight your battles and die. Most of them don't survive and stay with you for life. Probably 95, 98% will be gone. Same with yours. Even though it's from you, you think it's going to stay with you. No. You just activated them. You woke them up right out of hibernation. Now they go to battle for you and then they will die. Now you have less stem cell supply, so that's something to keep in mind. But also the other side of the side effect is that we have seen in research, older stem cells are declining in their ability to recognize cancer, so they tend to tell everything to grow. So the tendency is that your stem cells, especially mesenchymal stem cells, supposed to have anti cancer properties, is actually studied extensively to be used as a cancer treatment. But the older you are, the less of that capability there is to the point where they can promote existing cancer growth. So that's something you need to tell your patient. Right? Informed consent.

Absolutely.

Your type of product have the potential to exacerbate cancer. As we know all of us have floating cancer going around all the time. That's just part of life. And your immune system is supposed to get rid of it. However, if you put in an agent that can promote the growth, even though your immune system wants to get rid of it, but if you want to promote that growth, that's going to be more challenging. That's why there's the evidence of exacerbation of cancer. But you don't find that evidence with umbilical cord derived stem cells. The evidence is actually that they can get rid of cancer for you. So that's something you need to inform your patients.

Correct. You know, and I think, I think this brings the point for pluripotent stem cells. Right. You know, I'm 52 years old. I'm closer to the finish line than I am to the beginning. Right. And so, you know, there's still clinics out there.

I don't agree with that.

I feel it, though. In the morning when I get up, I feel it.

Oh, Dr. Martin, you need to practice what you preach. Put some more stem cells in you.

Look, if I had your genetics, you know, you're going to look the Same way at 82.

No, I'm not going to let you do that to me. It's not genetics is what I do. I do every three months.

You do practice what you preach?

Absolutely. I want to do the experiment for everybody.

I regularly nebulize biologics without question.

Okay.

About every six weeks.

And I'm one year senior of you, so just so you know. Okay, back to what you're saying.

So we still are seeing a lot of clinics overseas using pluripotent stem cells. And pluripotent stem cells have the ability to turn on cancer cells. They just simply do. Right. And so at my age, at 52, if I was to go and spend $60,000 to go to Panama or Costa Rica or Mexico and I got pluripotent stem cells, is there a likelihood that those cells are going to turn on cancer cells in my body and induce those cells? There's a very real potential of that. And unfortunately, when you see a lot of the rebuttals for the use of biologics in the United States, again, intentionally misinforming people. These experts are using literature from overseas. They're using literature describing pluripotent stem cells and they're talking about the oncologic potential of those cells. Intentionally misinforming and intentionally conflating a pluripotent stem cell from foreign source that's never gone through AATB processing in the U.S. with an umbilical cord derived product made by FDA, you know, applicable ISO certified AATB certified standards here in the U.S. it's disingenuous, it's wrong, but it's convenient because it sells PRP and BMAC kits. And again, right, when you have to twist literature and you have to conflate lies to sell a product, I think your moral high ground has been, has been vacated, compromised. You no longer have the moral high ground, Right. You don't get to sit on your artificial Game of Thrones, right, and say that you're going to sic your dragons on everybody else. Right. When your throne is a throne of lies.

Yeah. And it's, you know, so unfortunate that we're even having this conversation. You know, I would love for us to just stay in the positive in the spirit of healing. What are we doing? Are we uncovering? But now, because we come under attack because of certain people in the industry that their, their intention is to destroy competition, not to look at the evidence and how I can best enhance patient care. And it just, it's really unfortunate, but it's causing damage to the industry, causing damage to patient care because people are buying into these lies. That's why we have to have the conversation. We just, we have to show it, right? Bring it to light. You know, let's shine light on this.

I could not agree more. Look, you know, the truth dies in darkness. We've heard that countless times, right? If you're not going to shine a light and you're not going to have an open, glorious conversation about what is best for patients, how do you call yourself a doctor? Because you're no longer a doctor if you're not aggressively pursuing the evidence, in pursuing clinical results for the benefit of patients. All you are is a salesman. You're just selling. That's all you're doing, right? And so if that's what you're going to do, go ahead and do that. Right? But don't introduce yourself as doctor first and then stand on your medical degree to sell and lie. I think it's disingenuous and I think it's irresponsible. I think the community's big words, but, you know, but I think the community, the medical community is going to circle wagons and are they going to circle their wagons around the old pretentious, persnickety, you know, aggressive chiding folks or are they going to welcome a little bit of avant garde and a little bit of forward thinking? Because let's face it, we're losing. What we're doing today has been done in Israel for 50 years. What we're doing today has been done in Mexico for 50 years, Costa Rica for 50 years. Right. We're so far behind other countries when it comes to regenerative medicine, it's almost embarrassing. And so if. If we're not going to evolve, what are we doing? Right. Because we're supposed to be leading the world, we can do that by way of conversation, but we also need to act. Right? And I think when the medical community decides that there has to be a better way, I think this is when things will change. And I think we're getting there. Right. You're talking to orthopedic surgeons, I'm talking to orthopedic surgeons. We're all talking to cosmetic and regenerative medicine docs, we're talking to podiatrists, and we're talking to internists and rheumatologists, we're talking to urologists and GI doctors, and they're all looking for a way to get better outcomes for their patients. And they're all finding this field of biologics, both autologous and allogenic, is kind of the last frontier because we're only getting so far with drugs, synthetic drugs, right?

Yeah. Well, sadly, it's only a minority of those specialists who are actually looking into regenerative medicine, at least at this point. So that's. I mean, that's your observation as well, right? It's still a minority of people who are willing to think outside of the box.

It is a minority. But look, it has to start somewhere, right? Somebody has to lead the charge. Right? In if and when it becomes mainstream, then I hope it eventually does. Right. Whether they say my name or not, I could care less. Right. Because at the end of the day, the only name that should be said is the name of the patient, because that's the only thing that matters in this entire conversation. I am not important at all, right? I don't care who gets a patient better. All I care is that patients get better. And if my role in this is to be a pin cushion for everyone's spite and everything else, I'm fine with that. I'll take the arrows. If it means that a patient gets a better outcome, if it means. If it means that I've pushed you to a place where you have to have a broader, more informed discussion with the patient and they can avoid surgery, if that's what I do, I'd be stoked with that.

Yeah. And I think patients are the Ones that's driving this entire wave of regenerative medicine. I mean, they are the ones that are searching for solutions and we are responding to that. And then that's really what's happening.

And that's a great observation. You know what this has become? It's become a grassroots groundswell effort by patients who've been, they're frustrated with the system, they're frustrated with seven minute appointments, they're frustrated with super high co pays, they're frustrated with, you know, limited benefit plans and limited options and limited prescriptions. And they're like, hey, look, we're going to flex our dollars and we're going to, we're going to get more for ourselves. You are 100% correct. It's patience forcing the market to respond. And how great is that?

And people heard about it, right? My friend, my sister, they got great response. And I don't want to suffer either. How can I? Can you give it to me? Do you do it? And that's how I, you know, multiple providers come to me. I've got three patients lined up, but I don't know how to do this.

Please teach me. Exactly. Yeah. And you know what? That final bit there, please teach me. Right? We need more educators. Right? We, and I know you go and do trainings and I do trainings, but I mean, there's only a handful of us in the country that go out and do these trainings. Right? And it will show a provider what we know selflessly. Right? I'm going to teach you everything that I know in all the techniques that I use in my own practice and all the techniques that, you know, I use to get my patients better. I'm going to show you selflessly, without a license fee, without paying me a subscription, without being, you know, locked into using, you know, these products or those products. Right? I'm going to show you what I've learned by way of talking to thousands of doctors and treating tens of thousands of patients so that you can get unbelievable outcomes for your patients as well. How I've trained doctors that work two miles from me on the very same paradigms and protocols that I use in my office. You know why? Because it's not about me. It's not about me. It's about the patient.

Yeah. Amazing. Dr. Martin, this has been such incredible conversation. I mean, you are just a wealth of knowledge and your passion and your spirit. I just love it. And I want to, I want to continue the conversation because this is so fun. This is a fun me. Because, you know, as we're talking. I'm inspired. I'm learning more. So we have to do more. So. But we have to stop right now. And this has been enlightening. I'm hoping for a lot of patients and for a lot of people who are searching for ways to have better health and who are confused because there's been so much myth and so much muddying of the water. So I hope we've cleared some, you know, some air for people.

I cannot thank you enough for the time. And, you know, we'll pray for you every day that you. That you continue to do what you're doing, because the entire industry is better for it.

Oh, thank you so much, Dr. Martin. Okay, thank you, everyone, for listening.

Thank you, everyone. Have a blessed day.