Uncovering the Economics of Healthcare: Alternative Therapies vs. Traditional Medicine

[00:00:11] Hello and welcome back to Episode 7 for the Health Unlocked, The Power of Salutogenesis with Jason Peterson. Jason, how are you? I'm not too bad. How are you doing? I'm doing great, Jason. I'm finally getting some sun today, so feeling much better, let's say that. Yeah, it's... well actually it looks like the sun might be coming out. It wasn't super sunny, but it definitely warmed up. Yesterday it was...

[00:00:39] Yeah, I mean it seemed like late spring yesterday. Oh, and for our listeners, Jason is in Colorado, I'm in Pittsburgh, so we had different geographies there. But still, seems like we both got set, so no complaints. But we are bringing the heat with today's topic. It is the price of health, the economics of alternative therapies.

[00:01:04] It is a topic that I'm pretty sure a lot of people either don't understand the right way or it will rub the wrong way today. What do you think, Jason? It might, yeah. Yeah, I have a feeling too because it's always like... there's a lot of things we're going to discuss, so I'm excited about it.

[00:01:28] Let's get into it. So, we hear a lot, you know, in like health is wealth and people make financial decisions about their health every single day. But they don't always think of them as investments. They look at it as cost most of the time.

[00:01:49] And why do you think some people are willing to spend thousands of certain, you know, thousands on certain treatments while hesitating with others? Well, yeah, I agree with you. Lots of people do say health is wealth. But it does seem to just be all talk. Because when you look at the actual spending behaviors, most people do treat their health not as an investment but as an expense.

[00:02:16] And I was... I mean, even like accounting packages, right? So, you're kind of forced to put all of those expenses as expenses because that's what they call them. But whether a person sees a treatment as valuable, valuable enough to spend money on, it depends on a mix of factors, right? Obviously, one of those is cost. Another is doctor's recommendations. Another is insurance coverage.

[00:02:45] Again, all of that sort of revolve around cost. But if we want to kind of separate and look at pathogenic versus salutogenic treatments, pathogenic medicine is seen as more legitimate kind of for several reasons, while salutogenic medicine is often dismissed, even when it might offer better outcomes at a lower cost, right?

[00:03:15] So, let's examine each, right? So, why is pathogenic medicine seen as valuable? First of all, it's got the institutional backing behind it. It's heavily reinforced by the healthcare system. So, doctors tell patients it's the only real option, not necessarily because it's the best, but because it's the only one that they've been trained in.

[00:03:41] And patients just kind of, you know, trusting in their authority rarely look beyond that. And then the cost perception, expensive treatments feel more trustworthy. And people assume that if something costs thousands of dollars, it must be effective, right? Then you've got FDA approval that kind of equates to automatic trust.

[00:04:07] And we have to realize the FDA isn't a guarantee of quality or superiority. It simply grants the ability to market a product that's, or market it as, you know, safe and effective. And that label doesn't have anything to do with safety or efficacy, at least not quantifying them.

[00:04:31] And the FDA also considers all sorts of factors like what treatments already exist, how common the condition that, or the indication that it's going after is. And unfortunately, there might be some corruption in the next, which is which companies are producing the product or service. But, you know, the public just assumes that FDA approved is synonymous with the best option.

[00:05:00] And then insurance reinforces that illusion of value there. Even if patients have high out-of-pocket expenses, the insurance structures make treatments feel necessary and have high value. But insurance premiums, which people have been paying for years, and where these treatment payments, that's really where the treatment payments come from, right?

[00:05:30] It's not the out-of-cost or out-of-pocket payment that you have to make today. It's the interest, the insurance premiums that you've been paying for years. But pathogenic medicine kind of only feels more affordable because the costs are really spread out. And it's money people already spent but don't factor in.

[00:05:54] So then let's look at the flip side and look at why is cellulogenic medicine seen as less valuable, right? So, well, first of all, it's lacking the institutional backing. And again, if a conventional doctor doesn't recommend it, then people assume it must be ineffective or risky. And then in many cases, it's lower cost and that creates skepticism. Ironically, being cheaper makes people trust it less, not more.

[00:06:24] And many assume that if something is low cost, it must not work. And then you've also got that out-of-pocket expense and that feels more burdensome. So most cellulogenic therapies aren't covered by insurance, even though their total cost is much lower paying upfront fees and costs or just paying upfront. I guess it feels harder than having the cost spread out over time.

[00:06:55] And patients then hesitate because they assume if it were real medicine, insurance would cover it. And if doctors don't recommend it, it must not work. And this is why people hesitate to invest in alternative treatments often. They trust what the system presents as real medicine and assume cheaper non-insurance covered solutions are either ineffectual or unsafe.

[00:07:21] And I actually want to kind of jump back to a story that I told before about Eduardo. If you remember, he was the first person to actually use an eyeball based product on an, quote unquote, untreatable wound. So this is a good illustration of how trust in the system can override personal experience even. So.

[00:07:52] So. So. Remember, the first time that he used the product, it healed an untreatable diabetic foot wound, and they defined it as untreatable because nothing was working and then they have to go into amputation. And. And. Because that product didn't have any approval. And he was given it for free, perhaps he didn't place much value on it. And.

[00:08:20] So when he later developed another wound, instead of using what had already worked. Um, he trusted the system and went into a clinic. And the, the official recognized treatment that seemed like the right choice. Um, because, um, I mean, it seemed like the right choice because that's what the system tells him, right? You know, this is what's legitimate reinforces his trust in it.

[00:08:48] And, um, that kind of over, uh, overrode his own experience. And that decision ended up costing him, uh, or more than, than he could have imagined at the time. Um, I guess I'll, I'll. Finish that story later, but.

[00:09:08] But so all of this stuff kind of, uh, creates a strange dynamic where people will spend enormous amounts of, uh, money on these doctor recommended cratogenic treatments, even when they lower cost alternative therapy for the same condition might be just as effective and probably much safer. Uh, people make these, you know, financial decisions about their health every day, but often, uh, they're not based, they aren't based on what's best long term.

[00:09:37] They're based on this cost perception and institutional authority. This is why, um, and I, I read a lot about, especially marketing in general. And, uh, there have been so many stories that I have published through my company, which are the instances from history when, um, you know, just marketing campaigns to make women smoke cigarettes out at torches of freedom campaign.

[00:10:07] And, uh, all those, uh, uh, influences, how it was imposed and how you take credibility of physicians involved in those things and then marketed. And, uh, it all, I don't know if it's to deceive the word the right way, but it's certainly not helping. That's the way to say it. It wasn't the, uh, um, I can remember the commercial three out of four doctors smoke, whatever. I mean, yeah, it's. Yeah.

[00:10:37] And they were trying to prove a point that this is doctor approved. Yes. It's, uh, it's crazy. Um, let's, let's, uh, let's go into. I think an example would be a great option here to just go deeper. So the most common that we, most of people surface every day is the example for understanding organic food and conventional food. And some people see organic food as a smart investment.

[00:11:03] They will do everything to make sure they're getting organic foods, but others think it is just expensive waste of money. And that's what it is. So how does this fit into the cost versus psychology or cost versus value psychology? Can you, uh, give your explanation to this? Um, sure.

[00:11:25] And I, I guess that makes sense because, uh, in this analogy, uh, organic food is the alternative or salutogenic, uh, path. And the conventional food is the, um, institutionalized or, uh, um, I guess synonymous with the, the, uh, pathogenic or, or cratogenic, even though that's not what it's. That's not what that food is doing at all. Well, maybe.

[00:11:52] Um, and if you go into a hospital, they're probably not going to be feeding your organic food. Um, so you might assume, well, they're feeding me. It's gotta be good. Right. Um, no, definitely when, when people, uh, decide whether to buy organic food, um, they think they're choosing between a short-term cost and, and long-term benefit. Right.

[00:12:14] So some people see organic, uh, food as a wise investment in their health, believing higher quality food reduces chronic disease risk. Right. And others see it as an unnecessary expense. Hence there's expense again, questioning whether the benefits are worth the extra cost. And so really the first thing that, that we have to answer here is does food quality actually affect long-term health and costs?

[00:12:41] Um, you know, so there, there are those people who assume that conventional food is just as good, but what's the research actually show? Well, um, it shows that organic foods have higher nutrient density, lower pesticide residues and fewer harmful additives.

[00:12:57] And you have to remember that chronic exposure to pesticides and synthetic, uh, synthetic chemicals, increased risks of cancer, neurogenetic disease, metabolic disorders. And it's the CDR, the cell danger response that kind of explains all of that. Right. Um, and even if you go beyond pesticides, uh, organic meat and dairy have higher omega-3 levels.

[00:13:25] Organic produce often contains more antioxidants. So I guess, uh, while organic food isn't always necessary, um, food quality absolutely impacts long-term health. So should you eat organic? Well, then you have to look at how much do you value long-term health, um, which is an unknown versus how you weigh costs immediately.

[00:13:51] Most people think of, uh, future health as something that's kind of this vague subjective concept, right? But when you break it down into the actual costs, the numbers actually, I mean, they do tell a different story. Even with the additional upfront costs of organic food, it could save tens of thousands of dollars in healthcare expenses, um, over a lifetime.

[00:14:15] By reducing the chronic disease, improving hormonal health, and even preventing, uh, antibiotic-resistant infections. If you, if you examine all the numbers, um, food choices may influence lifetime healthcare spending by $50,000 to $250,000 or more. Um, and I haven't found a study specifically on that.

[00:14:43] So you kind of have to go through and, and pull out some numbers for yourself and see what the reduced risks are and so on and so forth. Um, but rather than kind of go through all that stuff, uh, cause it'll just take time. Um, why don't we take that as self-evident for now? Um, somebody might argue, but if you're not arguing, I'll keep going.

[00:15:05] Um, then the, the next step really is where kind of the time factor enters into the decision-making, right? So people struggle with investing in things that don't have immediate physical payoff. Um, the benefits of eating better, exercising, using salutogenic therapies, they're not always obvious immediately.

[00:15:30] But conversely, pathogenic, uh, medical treatments, uh, say are, I mean, they feel much more urgent because they're responding directly to a crisis. And this preference for immediate results over long-term benefits influences how, uh, people value their health spending, right? So, well, if I'm going to eat this, you know, organic apple versus this conventionally grown apple, I'm not going to notice anything tomorrow.

[00:15:59] Or right after I eat it. So why do it? Um, a great way to illustrate this is with the, uh, the marshmallow test. Have you ever heard of the marshmallow test? That's, um, that's where kids were given a choice. They could eat a single marshmallow now, or they could wait a certain time period. And then they were given two marshmallows later.

[00:16:25] And the kids who could actually, um, delay gratification and take the two marshmallows, they tended to do much better in life overall. So that this was actually a fairly long-term study. Um, they have stronger impulse control, better decision-making skills, at least long-term decision-making skills, and, uh, more success in long-term goals. That same principle really applies to health decisions, right?

[00:16:52] People who think ahead and prioritize prevention make better choices than those who focus only on their immediate wants and needs. So if you push me and ask, ask me to choose, um, I'd say organic is better both for individuals and for society as a whole. But I also kind of want to point out that the entire organic versus conventional food debate is a false dichotomy.

[00:17:20] The real issue isn't whether the added cost of organic food will make up for the long-term health costs of conventional food. It really is whole food versus processed food. People think that they're deciding between an organically raised chicken and a conventionally raised one.

[00:17:41] And that's, um, that's kind of the narrow, uh, uh, kind of choice that, that the system, I don't know how to say that, uh, wants you to focus on. Even if you were going to research this, that's what you have to focus on. You have to compare apples to apples. When the real issue is what we're actually eating. So the real comparison isn't organic chicken versus conventional chicken.

[00:18:05] It's actually organic chicken, which by the way is about five bucks a pound versus conventionally grown and processed chicken nuggets, which are $8 a pound. And along with that, you get, not only is it more expensive, but it's less nutritious and it's filled with all sorts of other additive junk, such as, uh, fillers and starches and seed oils and preservatives and flavorings.

[00:18:32] That your body barely recognizes as food and has to detoxify. So the debate shouldn't be about organic and conventional. It should be about minimally processed nutrient-dent foods, um, versus ultra processed ones. So if we actually frame that debate correctly, we can have our organic food and eat it too, I suppose.

[00:18:53] What's the incentive for companies who are already selling organic food to not categorize it better as not processed or whole food? Is it, is it more of like, like even those organic foods are processed to some extent, that's why? Or is it like just how the marketing is and that's how consumer understands? So this is one of all of them.

[00:19:20] Yeah, I think it all comes down to marketing and convenience and that's, that can be a whole nother debate. Um, and I think that's where we run into issues. And, and I, I don't know this, this mirrors exactly what's happening in medicine, right? Yeah. Just like the ultra processed food is overwhelming the body.

[00:19:39] Um, the ultra interventionist medicine or pathogenic medicine or pratogenic medicine overwhelms the body instead of supporting it. And, and people are told that the only choice is between expensive pathogenic, pratogenic treatments versus cheap, questionable alternative approaches. But that's again, the wrong debate.

[00:20:03] The real decision is, are we investing in restoring health or are we just managing symptoms when it comes to medicine? So a little bit different, uh, when applied to food. Um, but the system pushes us towards symptom management, just like it pushes us towards processed food. And in both cases, we, uh, we pay the price later.

[00:20:28] Um, so I, I don't know when, when, when it comes to food, uh, we see people on both sides of this, obviously some, some people are willing to pay more for something they believe that will benefit their health. And others just don't see the value of thinking it's all marketing. Um, but again, I, I, I don't see this as just about food. I, the same thinking applies to medicine and health treatments. And people, people make assumptions about effectiveness based on price.

[00:20:58] And sometimes that leads them to, uh, dismiss things that don't actually work. Yeah. Um, so I think next question is in this regard, self that sometimes people dismiss solutions simply because they're free and inexpensive. And you shared a little bit of story, even if they weren't.

[00:21:20] And, uh, why do you think we tend to overlook for undervalue something which does not have a high price tag? Um, so it's actually more nuanced and complex than that. Right. But I mean, so people tend to assume that if something is expensive, it must be more effective. Um, and, and, and this is, so this belief is reinforced by marketing, uh, medical institutions and our everyday experiences.

[00:21:48] Um, luxury brands and premium services often signal higher quality. And that that's real in most industries. That assumption is true. When you pay more, you often get better materials or craftsmanship, but in healthcare, it's different. The cost, uh, is often kind of completely disconnected from quality, which we should be defining as safety and effectiveness. Right. So that's quality.

[00:22:17] When, when we talk about medicine, it's safety and effectiveness. Um, in healthcare prices, aren't based on quality. They're based on regulations, insurance reimbursements, and the barriers to market entry. So the regulatory approval process is so expensive that companies must charge exorbitant prices, not necessarily because the treatment's better, but because they face little competition.

[00:22:45] I say they don't, they don't have to charge higher prices, but they can. And if they can, they will. And that's, uh, here's where that kind of this disconnect gets even worse, right? Regulatory approval is, is, is a massive, uh, cost driver for sure. Um, the process is so expensive that companies, um, charge kind of these extreme prices just to recover what they spent.

[00:23:15] Meanwhile, I spent on the development. Meanwhile, the public assumes that these treatments must be better simply because they're FDA approved, reinforcing the illusion that higher cost is higher quality, even in medicine. Um, so to kind of flip that around, why might alternative therapies be so much less expensive? I mean, you know, if, if we're, if we're charging based on value here and quality, well, then why aren't they, why don't you charge more?

[00:23:43] One reason is, um, that they can be, uh, they can't, or I guess I should say they can be, uh, less expensive, just effective, and most of the time safer. And the biggest reason why they can charge less is that they haven't paid the ridiculous amounts of money to gain regulatory. So the cost of getting a drug or medical treatment approved can be in the billions of dollars.

[00:24:12] This gives, uh, companies a, a pretty reasonable excuse to charge those exorbitant prices. Um, but the, here's, I guess, here's the important part, right? They, uh, that doesn't mean that the treatments are safer and more effective. It just means that they were patentable really. Um, and someone was willing to pay to push them through the regulatory gauntlet.

[00:24:36] Meanwhile, many alternative therapies, especially those based on natural compounds or well-understood mechanisms, uh, haven't undergone that process because that's hard to patent. But they also don't need to, and their safety risks are often far lower. So they can be used without requiring the same regulatory burden.

[00:24:59] Um, and yet because they lack the FDA's official seal of safe and effective, then people assume they must not work or they might be risky or they aren't real medicine, even though in many cases the opposite is true. Um, do you mind? I'll jump back to Eduardo and finish that. So, uh, his decision to trust clinic didn't just fail him. It, it cost him a lot more than he, he really wanted to pay.

[00:25:28] Um, what seemed like a no cost option for him turned into one of the most expensive choices, uh, probably of his life. That, that free clinic that he went to followed its usual standard of care procedures, debridement, antibiotics. Um, but in the process they gave him a severe systemic MRSA infection. And the result of that was more antibiotics to treat the systemic infection and amputation to eliminate the source. And, you know, the costs don't stop there.

[00:25:58] Uh, you've got hospitalization, follow-up pair. He's lost his mobility. He's now got long-term disability. And all of that became part of the real price that he paid. So that free clinic wasn't free at all. Um, it cost Eduardo months of suffering his independence and a lifetime of additional expenses.

[00:26:20] Um, if that eyeball-based treatment had been available at the clinic, he likely never would have contracted the MRSA infection. But it's really frustrating because the cost of Eduardo's hair skyrocketed due to the system's refusal to acknowledge an effective low-cost solution.

[00:26:43] Um, and instead of, of using an affordable working treatment up front, they, they really created a medical catastrophe that left him paying with his health and mobility and more ongoing expenses. Um, and I guess the, the reality here is that just because something's expensive or approved, it doesn't mean it works. Just because something's free, low-cost, or unapproved doesn't mean it doesn't work.

[00:27:11] Um, and in a situation where this free clinic, um, even if we put aside all of the kind of the humanitarian expenses that he's going to have to pay, um, I'm not sure if that's the right way to word that. Uh, it was paid for by taxes. So it's not really free. It's just free to him right now, but he's been paying for it in taxes all along.

[00:27:35] Um, and, um, uh, you know, so if we let that cost perception or, uh, approval of medical devices dictate what we trust, we risk spending more. We limit our options and ultimately we often get worse outcomes. Can you, right? We know that people are, I mean, they tend to dismiss solutions that seem too expensive, even if they work.

[00:28:05] Um, but at the same time, they all, they don't always realize how much they're spending on the treatments they do trust. And, you know, cause all of those costs are hidden and credit, creditogenic medicine often comes with massive hidden costs, not just in money, but in the side effects and additional treatments and long-term dependency.

[00:28:25] And so, you know, meanwhile, people assume alternative therapies are too expensive or impractical because they have to pay for them now without realizing how much they've already spent on, uh, you know, piecemeal solutions that don't really restore health. Whether it's creditogenic medicine, alternative, uh, therapies, the ludogenic medicine, the real costs at a fast. And sometimes in a way that I guess people don't really even consider.

[00:28:52] Can you, uh, break down the dollar costs, maybe give me an example with, uh, cost of credogenic treatments and how that compares to what if that needs, that would have happened with, uh, an alternative therapy. Can you break down and give an example? Sure. So, um, yeah, as I said, most people don't really know the credogenic or the cost of credogenic medicine, right?

[00:29:19] So they only see what their insurance covers, um, or what their insurance doesn't cover. Um, and, and then they're, uh, you know, they're out of pocket expenses, but the total cost, when you factor in hospital says and side effect management, long-term dependency, it's far higher than, than most people realize. Um, if you want to look at, uh, so we know that I started this whole thing because of cancer.

[00:29:40] So let's look at some of those, um, chemotherapy, uh, can cost, uh, 10 to $30,000 per round and often requires multiple rounds annually. Radiation therapy can be 10 to 50 K per treatment course. Immunotherapy can be, um, 100 to 250 K a year.

[00:30:02] And then beyond those numbers, the, the, these credogenic treatments also come with the additional hidden expenses, such as the hospital stays and emergency care. Um, many, um, many credogenic treatments really cause, uh, severe side effects and require additional intervention, right? Um, long-term medications. You've got lifelong prescriptions to manage conditions that are then occurring.

[00:30:29] You've got monitoring and follow-ups and frequent scans and blood work specialist visits add tens of thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, the alternative therapies often seem expensive at first glance, but, uh, they may cost, uh, far less over time, both financially and in terms of quality of life. Right.

[00:30:48] Um, so I, I've got an example of, uh, to, to understand how this, this system kind of traps people into costly and effective, um, care.

[00:31:01] I, I, I know a patient undergoing treatment for severe skin or a severe skin cancer wound, um, who's required to go in for monthly debridement procedures to qualify, uh, qualify for about $500 worth of wound care supplies. And the problem there is debridement isn't really necessary.

[00:31:23] So when you're using an eyeball-based treatment, uh, wound healing is accelerated and debridement actually slows the recovery. But because this treatment protocol isn't officially recognized for cancer yet, uh, patient has to follow the insurance mandated process, getting a procedure that isn't helping just to access covered supplies. So what's the result there? Most of those supplies, by the way, aren't needed.

[00:31:51] Um, or I guess they are needed because they keep on reopening the wound. And I mean, it's an example of how the system forces people into unnecessary, unnecessary interventions, not because, um, they're needed, but because that's how insurance and hospital billing structures work. So patient isn't just paying in money, they're paying in delayed healing, uh, unnecessary suffering and prolonged attendance on the system.

[00:32:20] And I, I guess, I suppose that many people also assume cryogenic medicine's cheaper simply because their insurance covers it, right? They think, well, my insurance pays for it, so I'm not really spending it. But that ignores all the premiums that they've already paid, probably in the tens or hundreds of thousands into the system, depending on how old you are and how long you've been doing this. Um, it ignores deductibles and co-pays.

[00:32:44] Uh, and you remember, even with insurance, a lot of cryogenic treatments require kind of massive out-of-pocket contributions. Um, you've got long-term, uh, costs. If that treatment doesn't restore health, you're stuck in the system paying for medications and follow-ups kind of indefinitely. Meanwhile, the alternative therapies aren't covered.

[00:33:08] So people see the full price up front, make some hesitate, even though the long-term cost is often much lower. Um, but. So, uh, even after experiences like, you know, the, the skin cancer, um, based on talking about people hesitate to kind of step out of the system. It's the assume alternative therapies must be expensive to experimental or not worth the investment.

[00:33:35] Um, so let's look at some of those numbers. Um, for something, you know, significant, let's say you have cancer or something along those lines, the supplements and nutritional-based therapies can be $50 to $500 a month. IV therapies such as vitamin C, ozone, um, could be $100 to $500 per session. Excuse me. Uh, pulse-electromagnetic field therapy can be $50 to $100 a session.

[00:34:04] Um, hyperbaric oxygen therapy can be $100 to $250 a session. I'm listing that one instead of the exercise is oxygen therapy because the assumption is exercise is probably contraindicated here a little bit. Photobiomodulation is $50 to $100 a session. And, you know, people often see those numbers and assume that alternative medicine is, is, uh, too expensive to try or too cheap to work. Ironically, either one.

[00:34:31] Ironically, you know, um, but what they don't realize is that these costs are, are temporary, right? Many alternative salutogenic approaches aim to restore function. Meaning that the expenses go down over time, not up. Unlike prategenic medicine, which often requires lifelong treatments. Right? So people spend far more on healthcare than they realize, whether through direct payments, hidden costs, or insurance.

[00:34:59] But here's the bigger issue. Um, the system has conditioned people to trust expensive cratogenic treatments while hesitating to invest in affordable salutogenic. Even when a lower cost therapy is safer and more effective, not always, but when it is, people still hesitate because price insurance coverage and mainstream recognition dictate what seems credible.

[00:35:25] Um, and, uh, these decisions aren't always rational, right? They're shaped by powerful influences. Like, uh, you know, their habit and convenience and fear and, uh, keep people stuck and kind of a costly cycle of care. So patients kind of stay trapped in costly cycles of care that doesn't actually restore health.

[00:35:53] And not only that, but in all the wrong things that happen because of this, the side effects and managing them, and then there's more costs associated with it. I don't know if I ever told you, um, I was, uh, there was a time when I was ill and they admitted me to the hospital and they couldn't feel it. I figured out the diagnosis in the beginning and they were like, Oh, maybe it is a suspect case of tuberculosis. And this is in Germany.

[00:36:23] And, um, and then, uh, they start treating me with that and they're giving me medicines. And then all of a sudden I have the worst appendiciting attack ever in my life. And I had never, ever before in my life ever had any of those things. And then at that moment, they're like, uh, I'm all by myself in this foreign country. My friends are not even in the same city. My family is not in the same country. And while I'm in pain and they're asking me, should we just go ahead and do the surgery?

[00:36:53] We have need your permission. Can you sign on it? I was like, I can literally not take the pain right now. And I don't know. I never had this problem throughout my life. This is the first time it's happening. I'm asking whatever medicine you gave it to me and they didn't want to listen to that. So they were quickly trying to show, show me, sign and do the surgery. And I had no choice. So, uh, I had, uh, that appendicitis removed that and there.

[00:37:19] And, uh, but, uh, but I was like, to this day, I feel like, Oh man, I, I wasn't in the hospital for that thing. And it caused whatever they gave me this thing, but, uh, but nobody will acknowledge. Right. And I would just went through for a completely different reason. Different surgery happened first. And then after I have to recover from that. And then afterwards they were like, okay, now we can get back to treating you for what you came for.

[00:37:47] So it is, uh, I was like, for their mind, they're suddenly thinking it's like, okay, you know, keep them, keep them there. They kept me for long. It actually took me 25 days to get out of the hospital during that time. But, uh, but, uh, but that was just part of the story that I remember that, Oh man, like how much, uh, like, uh, things that comes in wasted cost with just the impact of things that you take.

[00:38:14] And then you are managing those and you have no choice. And in certain scenarios you have to manage those because those are urgent now because of the way it was handled. And now it leads to the Justin extra surgery. If you think it's a cost on everyone, like it's a health system cost, your cost, everybody's cost. Right. So, um, You brought up a point there. Um, this wasn't in the U S a lot of times, you know, when, when we get into these conversations

[00:38:40] and discussions that there's an assumption that, Oh, it's the U S and the U S is so bad at all of this and so on and so forth. Well, it's kind of the same everywhere. Um, you know, it might be different scales, different dollar figures or whatever the local currency is. Um, but it's all kind of the same. Yeah, it is. And, uh, again, the thing was, uh, um, cost wise.

[00:39:07] Yeah, of course, cost system, their cost system, but still relatively the cost to the country or to the system is still there. Right. So it's the same fundamental. Um, okay. So people often assume their healthcare choices are based on effectiveness, but, uh, how much of our spending is actually driven by habit, convenience or fear rather than real results?

[00:39:34] Because, uh, I'll tell you, um, for me, I am kind of picky between convenience and fear. That's kind of defines my, my thing, like what I will do. Uh, and that's what is, uh, happens. And, uh, I've seen it, especially for men's health. It's just a very common theme. Like people, men don't go for even annuals for that reason, habit. Right.

[00:40:01] And, uh, so talk to me your thoughts on how people assume their healthcare choices on different factors. Um, well, so, I mean, people, they, they intend to make rational, at least I believe they intend to make rational choices when, um, uh, when it comes to healthcare spending and they assume that they're paying for, or if they're going to pay for a treatment that it's, whether it's

[00:40:27] covered by insurance or out of pocket, um, they want it to be the best option available. They think it's the best option available, but in reality, a huge portion of that healthcare spending is, uh, or isn't driven by effectiveness at all. And it's shaped by, you know, your, your habit, convenience and fear. Um, and I'll say that, I mean, so even, uh, not, not like I'm anything special, but even

[00:40:54] me, I got into all of this perhaps from, uh, the basis of fear because my entire family got cancer and we were all always really, really healthy, um, living a healthy lifestyle and, you know, eating organic food and all sorts of stuff. And yet everybody still got cancer. And, uh, you know, so there was some fear in driving me down these paths.

[00:41:19] Um, but I guess, so let's dig into some of that, right? So a lot of the healthcare spending happens automatically. Um, people just kind of follow the path that's laid out for them. I, I don't, I guess we can call that habit, but when a doctor prescribes something, they don't question about whether it's the best option that exists. They assume that, uh, that if it were something else were truly effective, it would already

[00:41:48] be part of the system and that's what, you know, their doctor would be offering them. Um, likewise, if insurance covers it, that's reinforcement of this concept. If, if something's covered, people assume it must be necessary. And if it's, uh, if it's, um, I, I, even if something that is uncovered is, uh, actually safer, more effective and cheaper in the long run, it's still the case.

[00:42:17] Um, that the assumption is that, oh, well, this thing that they cover, I have to have that just like the, uh, the skin cancer, uh, patient. Well, they're telling me that I'm supposed to go in and get this debrided. So, you know, since they're covering that, I must have to go in and do that. And then that's even reinforced with, well, they're not going to give me the, uh, the bandages and, you know, $500 worth of stuff unless I go in.

[00:42:44] Um, on top of that, medications kind of become automatic, right? Refills just keep getting filled. Uh, appointments get scheduled and before you know it, uh, you're on your 10th round of just in case blood work and a medication list, you know, longer than your, than your grocery receipt. Um, and this is exactly, uh, what cratogenic medicine arrives on. It doesn't cure anything or pathogenic medicine. It doesn't cure anything, right?

[00:43:14] By definition, it manages symptoms. Um, but because people trust the system, they don't stop to ask whether they're being, um, kept in this lifelong spending cycle. Um, another reason is that people, uh, they also stick to cratogenic medicine because it's easier to access. Insurance makes it feel cheaper. Uh, you know, even if you've already spent thousands in premiums, um, so they don't feel

[00:43:43] the financial burden directly. So they're assuming they're getting a deal, uh, hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors offices are everywhere and systems kind of designed for you to stay in it. Meanwhile, if someone wants to try an alternative therapy, they have to research it themselves, uh, pay out of pocket and really step outside of the comfort of that structured system. That's a big ask, right?

[00:44:07] Especially if someone's already sick in pain or, or overwhelmed, um, or all three. And I, you know, so I feel like I keep coming back to this, even when alternative therapies are proven to work better, not proven, you know, not proven to the FDA. Um, people hesitate because they assume that if it really worked, my doctor would have told me about it.

[00:44:33] And, um, so if it is convenience that keeps people in the system, it's fear that really locks them in, right? Fear of, you know, missing the window. If they don't start treatment immediately, their condition will spiral out of control. Um, and that sense of urgency, uh, makes people, I guess, um, less likely to ask whether the recommended treatment is actually the best choice.

[00:45:03] There's also the fear of regret. If they don't do what the doctor says and things go wrong, they blame themselves or their family blame them. Um, then you've got the fear of going against the system, which is a big one. Uh, when every trusted source, doctors, family members, and even the media is saying this one thing and the same thing, stepping outside of that feels really risky. And, um, that's, you know, that's one of the most effective sales tactics in medicine.

[00:45:31] Rhytogenic medicine doesn't just sell treatments. It sells urgency, dependency, and reassurance. The messaging is also always do this or else. Um, so when you combine all that habit, convenience, and fear, you get, uh, the system where, you know, people end up spending money continuously, not because the treatments are working, but because they don't know how to opt out. They assume that they're making, uh, choices based on what's best for their health.

[00:45:58] But in reality, uh, their decisions are being shaped by forces that they're not really even aware of most of the time. And the irony of that really is many of the same people who say that they can't afford, can't afford alternative therapies are already spending thousands of, on this, you know, the cratogenic medicine and procedures that don't actually restore health.

[00:46:24] Instead of questioning the cost of real healing, they continue to, uh, they continue paying into the system that keeps them dependent. Spending more over time, uh, while never truly getting better. You know, crises are being managed, but they're not really getting significantly healthier. The problem isn't just the cost of alternative therapies, it's the cost of staying in that broken system.

[00:46:52] It's like, uh, it's like we need, uh, we need to follow, uh, what Big Pharma did by advertising with the doctors. So it looks credible. And that's kind of what we'll have to do on, uh, uh, on alternative therapy side too. It's kind of happening because there is this wave of physicians who are more focused on longevity or, uh, functional medicine. And they are kind of, you know, just trying to round up overlapping what they can.

[00:47:22] And that's how they're kind of distinguishing with that messaging because it resonates with people too. Right. So, uh, it is, uh, however, I haven't seen, or at least, I don't know anyone, a physician who just came out of saying that this is, this is a problematic system completely. We don't have to be in this system. Uh, and, uh, yeah, I mean, I've seen no insurance doctors yet. That's a wave. And they're trying to do that. Sure. You're right. It's changing.

[00:47:51] And there are lots of alternative doctors that are kind of turning away from all of the, uh, inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of, of the current system for sure. And I think that's awesome. Yeah. Yeah. It's a, it's a ray of optimism. That's it. Uh, all right. So, you know, we've discussed, uh, of course in a little bit story that you told the diabetic

[00:48:19] food ulcers a lot before. Can you explain a standard treatment cost and show how these might compare to a salutogenic treatment like the ion gel? And then, uh, you know, again, little cost benefit analysis here. Sure. Okay. So, um, the diabetic foot ulcer, uh, DFU, um, uh, they're one of the most expensive and,

[00:48:46] and I guess devastating, uh, complications, um, in, in medicine, right? So people will spend tens of thousands, sometimes over a hundred thousand dollars trying to save a limb yet standard of care still fails. Many patients, um, severe infections, amputations, and long-term disability are common even after aggressive treatment. So what, what's the actual financial burden there? Uh, you've got routine wound care, um, minor wound care supplies, dressings, antiseptics,

[00:49:16] and such can cost anywhere between 500 to say 1500 annually. Chronic wounds, um, can cost or treating them can cost, uh, five to 30 K per year per wound, depending on the complexity and the need for advanced therapies like debridement and, and, uh, or skin, uh, substitutions and such. Um, then you've got hospitalization or surgery.

[00:49:43] Um, remember the, the severe infections, amputations or hospitalizations for wound complications that, that can all add, you know, 20 to 50 K or more per episode. And many patients kind of then stay in the cycle, uh, for months or years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars while their condition progressively worsens. Now, some of that is because they still have diabetes or still have diabetes. They are still diabetics.

[00:50:12] Um, but you know, so in many cases, they, they also still end up losing a limb. And so I think that, uh, you know, at a certain point, the question isn't just how much should we spend, but rather, why are we paying so much for treatments that don't actually heal people?

[00:50:32] Um, here's, here's actually a, uh, um, a real case, kind of one of the worst, uh, DFU cases that we've seen using the, uh, the ion gel. So it was the, the patient's entire lower leg from knee to ankle. Imagine like the calf just, you know, became a balloon and it just split the skin down and you had this

[00:51:00] big, huge, long wound. Um, the, uh, the infection was, was pretty severe. And the standard protocol pointed towards, um, skin grafting, long-term wound care, and still a high likelihood of amputation. So let's break down the cost for that.

[00:51:20] Um, the total cost of standard of care, um, for a severe DFU like that easily be 50 K or more, um, with still a high risk that would still have to be amputated. The cost of that eyeball based treatment, they used $200 worth of ion gels ECM 25. That's the actual name of the product. With full wound closure and no skin grafts needed at all.

[00:51:50] So that's, and that's not just about saving money, right? Yeah. It's a ton of money that was saved there, but it's about achieving a completely different outcome. Um, the, the cratogenic DFU treatments often lead to long-term dependency, frequent hospitalizations, and then again, sometimes still amputations when they, when they can't treat it. Whereas the salutogenic therapy, like the eyeball based one can actually support healing at fraction of the cost. Not always, but in this case for sure.

[00:52:21] And so eyeball or the ion gel isn't standard practice yet, not because it didn't work or doesn't work, but because it's new and challenges existing protocols. Um, and most breakthrough treatments don't gain, uh, recognition overnight. Um, especially when they disrupt the financial incentives of the, uh, entrenched system.

[00:52:47] But with its safety efficacy and cost effectiveness, eyeball isn't really just another option here. I see it as the future of infection control and wound healing. Um, and you know, that's, that's not just about the diabetic foot ulcers, um, with its proven safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness. Ion gel, ZCM25 represents, uh, which should be the future of infectious disease treatment, wound healing, cellular restoration.

[00:53:16] Unlike conventional cratogenic treatments that drive up costs with complication side effects and then ongoing dependency, um, eyeball based solutions offer a way to restore health without creating additional burdens financially or biologically. And so the, the financial argument should be obvious, right? When a, when a, when a, when a treatment's safer, more effective and significantly less expensive, it should be the first choice.

[00:53:45] But despite the overwhelming cost benefit advantage, um, of eyeball and other cellulogenic therapies, they aren't widely adopted and that's not by accident. And remember, we even have one of these eyeball based cellulogenic therapies is now approved. But I, so you have to, the conventional medical system doesn't just ignore alternatives.

[00:54:13] solutions that actively work, uh, works to discredit them. And, and, you know, from the regulatory barriers, uh, to media narratives, there are powerful horses at play that, that shape public perception in ways that people don't realize. How do they shape this public perception? What strategies are they using it?

[00:54:38] So, um, I guess the, the, the medical establishment doesn't just ignore these alternative therapies, right? It works to make people doubt them. Um, and that, that's really done with that mix of barrier, uh, regulatory barriers, um, industry influence and media driven skepticism. We've, we've, we've discussed how drug development costs, uh, exploded after that, uh, the law requiring proof of efficacy was passed.

[00:55:07] Um, was that the last time or two times ago? I forget which episode that was. Um, but at the, at the time that was marketed to ensure only effective drugs made it to market. But a more skeptical person might ask whether this was also about protecting pharmaceutical interests.

[00:55:31] Um, the FDA actively prohibits anyone from making a medical claim unless they've gone through their gazillion dollar approval system. Meanwhile, drug commercials openly list, uh, death as a possible side effect. And that's just considered business as usual. But it's, it's not just about the regulations. It's about shaping public opinion there. Um, and public perception.

[00:55:57] If a therapy isn't part of the system, it's automatically dismissed as unproven or dangerous. And this is even when it's safer and more effective than the approved alternatives. That means that if a therapy has a strong scientific backing, real world success, or, uh, an understood mechanism of action, you aren't, you still aren't legally allowed to share those results unless you paid the system's entry fee. Um, which is frustrating.

[00:56:26] Uh, and, and the FDA enforces this aggressively. They don't just issue warnings. They actively prosecute companies and people, seize products and shut down operations. If they claim a product, uh, it helps with a disease without official approval. They, not the FDA, they, the, the company or people. Um, another, I guess, uh, strategy is, is they set the bar for proof at whatever level ensures alternative therapies never really pass. Right?

[00:56:55] So most doctors won't even consider treatment unless it's validated by large scale double blind placebo controlled studies. The kind costs millions of dollars to conduct. But the only entities willing to fund those studies are pharmaceutical companies because they can patent the results and then turn them into billion dollar drug therapies or billion dollar therapies. Meanwhile, a natural or salutogenic treatment can have decades of clinical use, thousands of

[00:57:25] case studies, and even known mechanisms of action. Um, but if it hasn't gone through that pharmaceutical trial system, it's dismissed as unproven. Um, and that includes all of the traditional medicine that people used to follow. But remember, that was more about a salutogenic thing than a pathogenic thing. So you're right. The system doesn't just ignore alternative treatments. It actively works to damage their credibility, right?

[00:57:53] You've got medical organizations that publish warning articles against, uh, natural therapies, calling them ineffective or dangerous. You've got quack watch websites and fact checkers, fact checkers, uh, skeptics, um, publicly attack, uh, anything outside the pharmaceutical model. Doctors who are, who advocate for alternative treatments risk losing their licenses, um,

[00:58:21] ensuring that only pharmaceutically or pharmaceutical aligned voices dominate the, the conversation. And the media plays along. If someone dies after using an alternative therapy, it makes headlines. If someone dies from chemotherapy side effects, there's nothing to talk about. It's almost expected. Right? So why does this matter? Uh, you know, it's the results, uh, rigged or a perfectly rigged system.

[00:58:48] Solutogenic treatments are blocked from making medical claims dismissed as unproven and publicly attacked when they gain traction. And that's why people hesitate to trust them even when they work, even when they're safer. And even when they cost a lot less, but as you mentioned, you know, there, there's good news. People are waking up more patients, researchers, and, and even some alternative doctors are recognizing

[00:59:13] the shortcomings of our, our, our patogenic medicine and actively searching for better solutions. And as awareness grows, we can expect to see more salutogenic treatments like eyeball based ones being developed and adopted. What, uh, before we end today's episode. So if you could change just one thing about how we, how we price and value healthcare today,

[00:59:41] something that could make salutogenic therapies more accessible, what would it be? Just one thing. If I could change one thing, uh, it would be eliminating the efficacy requirement and reinforcing safety requirements. Right. Remember right now you're allowed, or you're not allowed to say a therapy works unless you've paid that ridiculous amounts into the, the, their approval system, the FDA approval system. Um, the problem is just cost there.

[01:00:08] It's the efficacy trials don't always reflect world, real world effectiveness. And the therapy, um, might work in a controlled study, but fail in practice or vice versa for safe therapies. There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to make claims as long as they're willing to stand behind them. One way to do that is have a performance guarantee. If a therapy, uh, claims to help with a certain condition, it should either work or the patient gets their money back.

[01:00:37] Um, pharma might not like that so much though, because people might start expecting that, uh, for all therapies, um, and for all therapies to come with a performance guarantee. Um, I'll actually mention that, uh, the eyeball based cosmetic and nutritional products always have had a no questions asked money back guarantee. Have you ever seen that in medicine?

[01:01:03] Imagine, uh, getting a refund because your, your cholesterol pill didn't work. Um, but I, I guess also that that's, uh, you know, getting rid of those, uh, the efficacy requirement and reinforcing the safety one, that's more at a systemic level at a personal level. People need to start doing a real, uh, cost benefit and risk to benefit analysis, you know,

[01:01:29] for every treatment, whether it's solubigenic, cratogenic, pathogenic, um, that's how you make informed decisions, right? For example, uh, ivermectin and benzidol, that's a hard word to say, uh, are gaining traction for their efficacy against various cancers. They're cratogenic drugs still, but they've been around for a pretty long time. They're relatively inexpensive and they have favorable risk profiles.

[01:01:54] So when the cost is low and the risks are minimal, it makes sense to consider them. Um, and if they don't work for you, fine. Um, but with as much feedback as, uh, or anecdotal evidence that they're generating, I think that the risks, uh, and, and price to benefit are probably worth trying.

[01:02:17] So if we really start demanding this transparency, accountability and results, then, uh, uh, and not just regulation and marketing restrictions that we can kind of shift the future of healthcare, um, toward real healing and not just endless treatments. And that shift starts with people making informed choices, questioning what they're told, looking beyond the system's narrow definition of, of, uh, medicine.

[01:02:47] The more we challenge these narratives, the harder it becomes for the system to ignore real results. So I don't know what's the first step, I guess, uh, start asking hard questions about your own care, um, about the medical industry and why true health restoration isn't their priority. Because if not, people start demanding real change, the system will have no choice but to listen, right?

[01:03:14] And, um, what do you think is the main reason why it's such an uphill battle? Well, I mean, we've touched on this a little bit. It's, it's, I, I don't necessarily want to jump to conspiracy theories and so on and so forth. It's, this is the way that the system was set up. Um, and that goes all the way back to, um, you know, uh, original medicine, traditional

[01:03:42] medicine was a lot more salutogenic in nature, but still somewhat pathogenic in that, you know, the people still wouldn't go see their, their local, um, healer unless they had something to heal. Um, and, and again, you know, people lived much more salutogenic lives back there just based on what they did every day. Um, much of that is gone, uh, today.

[01:04:12] Excuse me. And so we, we kind of, I don't know, we run into all of these issues a lot more now and none of this. Well, I'd like to think that this wasn't really, uh, or the way that the system turned out wasn't the intent, but I got to say, the more that I look back on, um, that, uh, uh,

[01:04:39] that law that was passed to ensure efficacy testing along with safety testing, I got to ask, well, why, why did we throw in efficacy there? That wasn't the problem. It was safety. Safety was the problem. Because again, that, that, that drug was causing birth defects and the drug, the indication for the drug was morning sickness.

[01:05:08] Um, I don't think any mother would have made the choice to not have morning sickness and risk birth defects. So it wasn't needed. Even, even if I said this in the last one, even if the efficacy for that drug was a hundred percent and you won't ever, you know, experience morning sickness. Okay. But the risk is still significant, uh, birth defect.

[01:05:38] You're going to take it. Probably they're all going to say no. Yeah. So, and if the safety, so if you didn't enforce efficacy and you only enforce safety and it came back, oh, well, yeah, this, this drug can, can cause some birth defects. Um, maybe this is a bad example because I've already said if that's the result, uh, no one's going to choose that.

[01:06:08] Um, but I'll run with it anyways, cause thinking of another one might be different, but you know, so let's take that, that off the table. It's just, oh, there are some risks. Okay. Well, now since there are some significant risks, even if I don't know what they are, uh, or I can't, we can't talk about them now cause I'm making this up. Um, I'm going to require that whomever is trying to sell me this drug. I've proven some efficacy. Otherwise I'm not going to take it because they've already shown me the risks.

[01:06:38] But again, if you come and say, Hey, this drug might do all this stuff. What are the risks? Almost nothing. Okay. Well then fine. I'll take it because I might as well. Cause in the end, it all depends on how my body metabolizes everything anyways. And how it works within me is going to be different than maybe everybody else. So the efficacy that you've proven might not have anything to do with me anyways. So you might as well not go through the process because it's not needed, whether it's needed or not is defined by safety.

[01:07:08] Yep. Yep. I, I, I think that's the core affair. The everybody as a consumer needs to question more, uh, not just the efficacy, but also the side effects that comes with it. And that's the first step, right? Like the number one step, because I feel like, yes, we all want to get treated.

[01:07:32] You know, drugs work, but if, if it is going to cause, if, even if there is some probability that it will cause something else, it's not the net positive that you're hoping for. So it doesn't, it is not the viable path or at least the optimal viable path. So I, I, I, in my mind, that's where it starts with consumers to question that, that piece, the first, the number one, and then that could lead to more questions, if not answers,

[01:08:01] that will help, uh, you know, shape the system. So that's where I would leave it today's conversation. Uh, a long episode, but very insightful. Thanks again for sharing all the insights. And, uh, like I said, it is, uh, it is, uh, it is an important topic that I personally love to go deep into. And, uh, that's why I had so many stories to share in today's episode.

[01:08:28] Outside of what your insights were sharing, a lot of personal stories. I'm sure a lot of people have similar stories of how this has worked in their lives. So, uh, tune in, get back. We'll get back with the next episode. But, uh, uh, we leave you with this question to think about, to ponder about how would you tackle this perception in your own world? And, uh, if you want to reach out to us, then, uh, email us.

[01:08:54] You can go to the show's website and you can enter your email or enter a message there from contact form and it will come to us. So, uh, share, reach out to us. What do you think? And we will, we will, we will have, uh, if we get some interesting questions or answers or anecdotes, we'll share in our next episodes. Thank you so much, Jason. Once again, appreciate you. Thank you. Bye.