How would you react if you were handed a diagnosis of cancer?
Dr. Charles Meakin is a seasoned physician dedicated to integrating metabolic health strategies into cancer care. Dr. Meakin provides firsthand insights into his holistic journey, combining traditional treatments with innovative health strategies.
Cancer management is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It requires a strategic fusion of lifestyle interventions and medical treatments. Dr. Meakin and I explore various health strategies such as managing insulin insensitivity, intermittent fasting, and exercising post meals to slow down cancer cell metabolism.
We challenge the conventional wisdom around statins, scrutinize research on cholesterol levels in centenarians, and discuss the importance of dose customization.
Lastly, we touch on the exciting advancements in early cancer detection, such as the promising blood biopsy technology. So step aboard this enlightening journey as we unravel the mysteries of cancer and the myriad ways we can fight it.
Find Dr. Charles Meakin at-
https://meakinmetaboliccare.com/
https://www.coachitforwardchuck.com/
Find Boundless Body at-
How would you react if you were handed a diagnosis of cancer?
Dr. Charles Meakin is a seasoned physician dedicated to integrating metabolic health strategies into cancer care. Dr. Meakin provides firsthand insights into his holistic journey, combining traditional treatments with innovative health strategies.
Cancer management is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It requires a strategic fusion of lifestyle interventions and medical treatments. Dr. Meakin and I explore various health strategies such as managing insulin insensitivity, intermittent fasting, and exercising post meals to slow down cancer cell metabolism.
We challenge the conventional wisdom around statins, scrutinize research on cholesterol levels in centenarians, and discuss the importance of dose customization.
Lastly, we touch on the exciting advancements in early cancer detection, such as the promising blood biopsy technology. So step aboard this enlightening journey as we unravel the mysteries of cancer and the myriad ways we can fight it.
Find Dr. Charles Meakin at-
https://meakinmetaboliccare.com/
https://www.coachitforwardchuck.com/
Find Boundless Body at-
Hello and welcome to another episode of Balanced Body Radio. I'm your host, casey Ruff, and today we have another amazing guest to introduce you now. Dr Charles Meakin is a 63-year-old physician who works to integrate metabolic health strategies into cancer care. After graduating from the University of Notre Dame with a degree in economics and pre-medicine, he matriculated at the University of Cincinnati Medical College. After completing his residency in radiation oncology at Stanford University Hospital, he supplemented his formal education by enrolling in a diverse array of programs ranging from hypnosis and nutrition to Eastern philosophy.
Speaker 1:As the former chief officer of care oncology, dr Meakin strove to introduce effective, well-tolerated holistic adjuvants to supplement the standard of care and measure their impact on patient outcomes. He continues that quest today in his own clinic, meakinmetaboliccarecom. Interventions examined include simple balance training programs, diet adjustments, supplements, repurposing of metabolically-acting drugs, portable O2, exercise bands and sleep hacks. When he is not doing a virtual consultation, he enjoys spending time in nature. He and his wife Lindsay love to hike the North Carolina mountain trails near their home and cruise stand-up paddle boards on nearby lakes and rivers. Dr Charles Meakin would be absolutely honored to welcome you to Balanced Body Radio.
Speaker 2:Hey, thank you, Casey, it's awful nice to you. Thank you for that introduction. I confess the clock has turned. I'm now 64. So heading toward, I guess, free healthcare or lower cost healthcare.
Speaker 1:There you go, there you go. Well, you look amazing at age 64. And I'm doing a terrible job of something here. On this podcast, I've been really actively trying to dissuade people from knowing anything about Utah. I don't want anybody to know anything about Utah. I want them to move to Colorado, go to California, and just yesterday I had a listener of the program reach out to me on Instagram and say hey, I'm thinking about moving to Utah. What area should I check out? And I was like no damn it, that's out of the bag. It's such a wonderful place around here and you visited recently. Tell us about the trip that you took out to Utah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So I've always wanted to come out there and one of the kids that was in entrepreneurial school with me. I went back after working in healthcare. Travis lives out in Salt Lake City and he is a true outdoorsman, and so myself and another local hiker who's done a lot of mountaineering, we've done mild mountains, We've done like Philharmon, Jaro and Mount Whitney and the Olympic range, Mount Rainier, Adams, Baker, those kind of things that are more technical. But then we wanted to just come out. Let's try to let the latter part of the pandemic and we did seven days and four places Red Rock, outside of Las Vegas, Bryce Canyon, we went to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and then we went to, we did the Narrows there in what's.
Speaker 1:So it depends on whether you're a local to Utah or not. If you're a local to Utah, it's Zion. If it's Zion, yeah.
Speaker 2:if it's everywhere else it's Zion, zion. Yeah, and that famous time was angels landing where you. It's kind of dangerous. We have to hold on to a cable. But that was closed because of the pandemic and they said didn't want people getting too close to each other. Yet people were sort of pirating it and getting on it. But as a physician with 45 licenses and I was like I can't get hot for something like this, so I said no, we're not going to do another trail.
Speaker 1:Nice. It's pretty dicey up there, man. It gets very steep and there's chains you have to climb up. Like you said, yeah, it's pretty dicey, but Utah's an amazing place it is but so is North Carolina. I got to visit there a few years ago and it's absolutely amazing. There too, very beautiful.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I saw a lot of that and two Saturdays ago I went to our local mountain and there's rock climbing there and good hiking and whatnot and a lot of good lakes and rivers. Whitewater kayaking is big here. Charlotte has the US National Whitewater Center. I was on the startup board for it and it's my class three and four runs manmade. It's on a river. We got climbing, mountain biking. It's on a thousand acres. It's a real dream for outdoorsmen and women.
Speaker 1:That's fantastic If you can stand the heat in the summertime. And you mentioned paddle boarding, which is one of my favorite things to do. We've got a lake just a mile away, so I take my paddle board up there all the time, and one day a buddy of mine and I had the idea to try rivers. It sounds like you are paddling rivers and lakes there, but the river we chose was like kind of a mountain river and it was like the end of the season so there's less water, but it was still rushing really quick and so immediately as we put our paddle board in and jumped on, we were going like five miles an hour. And I can tell you, when you're going five miles an hour but your paddle board stops because it hits a rock, you continue moving. Oh yeah.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, you face plant. Oh, it was not great, it was not a good idea.
Speaker 2:I actually have paddle boards that are somewhat designed for like running rapids. Now at the Whitewater Park kids do that, but you know you're going to have some aggressive falls. I just do. You know Whitewater kayaking there. And now I have taken, you know, my board on slow rivers, you know, just for sightseeing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'll keep it on flat water.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Oh, that's amazing. Well, you have such an interesting story getting into. You know a kind of different way of looking at oncology. Very near and dear to my heart, I lost my mom to cancer and I very much, very much believe that it was the treatments that killed her, not necessarily the cancer.
Speaker 1:Regardless, you know we're learning so much about cancer yet we don't ever really seem to be moving the needle as far as the people that are being diagnosed, how many people are dying, like it seems like there's kind of a disconnect as to like we learned so much about it on all this genome project and that didn't really lead to anything, it's like. Are we making any progress?
Speaker 2:Well, I can see how one would feel that. You know, well, before your time, casey 1971, I think it was Richard Nixon declared the war on cancer and you know he said we're going to spend money on this and you know, in five years we're going to figure this out. You know that was what 50 plus years ago and you know cancer is just under heart disease is the second most common cause of death in America. However, you know it's more and more a cause of life disruption. You know we now have 14 cancers that are on the rise that are more so metabolically driven. You know, historically we had worries about smoking and smoking related cancers. Those are actually slightly on the decline and now we're seeing these metabolically driven cancers which are common sites, like you know, ovary, breast, pancreas, endometrial, colorectal those really, you know, spiking and younger people.
Speaker 2:I see a lot of people and historically if I saw somebody in their 20s or 30s with colorectal cancer it would be sort of something to write up in a journal. But now we're seeing a lot more of that and I don't want to, you know, pull the alarm bell. But you know only about 25 to 30 percent of cancers diagnosed are diagnosed based on routine screening Meaning if you did everything to the letter you know that we know to do that's recommended by NCI, the American Cancer Society you would only find about 25 to 30 percent of the cancers that develop, you know, in the United States. So that leads a big gap of like. How are we going to find those ones that are not being found on routine screening?
Speaker 2:So the good news is there's some blood biopsies coming out that look promising, some that I'm excited about. Secondly, there are ways to, you know, modify your health and wellness well before you are at that risk stage to get cancer, and that's a big part of what I do at Meakin Metabolic Care. I do an unborn inventory, look at risk factors and not just say, well, you know, based on the screening, you don't have cancer. We say, hey, you got some small smoke signals here that need to be managed so that 10 years from now you know you're not going to be at risk for cancer. So this is kind of a big part of what we do and I can talk more about that if you want.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, absolutely. And it's cool to know that you're working with Travis Christofferson. We've interviewed him a few times.
Speaker 1:We've interviewed Dr Seyfried a few times, bradigan Maggie Jones, who I get to see on your website working with Maggie is very cool, so we've learned quite a bit about cancer and I don't think we've done a good enough job talking about the history of cancer itself, and I think you would be an awesome person to talk. I've heard you talk about this in the past. I don't know how far back you want to go. Was cancer something we always got as a species? Do you know or like? Can you take us through kind? Of the history of cancer.
Speaker 2:It's, you know it has been with us a long time. I mean going back to you know mummies, you know Egyptian mummies buried, you know. But at junction point that's kind of interesting for our today's discussion is, you know, the German society we're seeing, because they're one of the early industrialist societies. We're seeing a rise in cancer and in the 1930s there was a sort of mandate to sort of try to investigate more resources to figure out cancer and one of the early you know researchers over there, physiology researcher Otto Warburg, who interestingly, you know, was used what we could send her today some primitive, you know, research tools, but identified a paradox that cancer cells would burn glucose in the presence of oxygen. So they had this you know, non-aerobic metabolism, the mitochondria of those cancer cells, despite having availability of oxygen, and that you know was very inefficient. You know, when you, when you, when you're at peak running, you have to start, you know, because you're not getting enough oxygen. You know, to fulfill the needs of the muscles, you have to start making, you know, atp through the burning of glucose in an anorabic, non-oxygen way and you only make for every glucose molecule you only make two ATP. So it's really, you know, it's really sloppy expenditure. Well, cancer cells do that all the time and normally when we use oxygen we make 36 ATP from one glucose molecule.
Speaker 2:So so that was a point where he first of all won a Nobel Prize for it in the 30s and he, you know that's, he was looked at as cancer's. You know, opportunity for targeting was this metabolic variance. And then, with you know Watson and Crick and the in the invention or the study and finding of the DNA, you know, coil and whatnot, shifted to more of a targeting of, you know, genetic mutations as the cause of cancer and that's called the somatic mutation theory. And then the metabolic theory, namely that you know cells that ultimately lose their ability to create efficient energy, then lose the sanctity or the control mechanisms that control transcription in a in a sound way. You know. And there's a whole big story around Otto Warburg. That's pretty interesting. No, he somehow was given privilege by Hitler to Continue his research, even though he was a Jewish researcher, you know, in in Germany during World War two. So Ultimately, you know he was, you know his voice wasn't heard too much after that, even into the 50s.
Speaker 2:And and then that's somatic mutated, this somatic mutation theory, todd hold and all our energies have been at genetic targets until probably the last 15 years. You know, through thoughtful people like who you mentioned, travis Christofferson, look happy over the truth. So I was saying you know we're missing something here. And, by the way, you know, when you do a PET scan, reason it works is you take a glucose molecule and you put a Radio isotope on it and it works because it goes right to the tumor and that's all you know, separates, you know, normal tissue from tumor cells. Now, granted, there is a lot of uptake of Blu-Pose in the brain and then metabolically active areas of the body like the heart, and it's created through the kidneys. So those have some highlighting, but really the, the differentiating quality there is the, the appetite for glucose.
Speaker 2:Now, more recently, you know the work of different research. There's, like Dr Cankely at Cornell University in New York started, you know, finding targets like P1 pre-k inhibitors that work on the transporter that pulls glucose into cells, and now the theory is more of a Probable blended theory that it's metabolic and genetic instability. And so what we do is you repurpose drugs and you know other sort of easy lifestyle Interventions, maybe supplements too, that make it harder for for cancer cells To acquire glucose, use glucose, be up regulated to you. Glucose as well as doesn't, you know, impair normal cells as much. In fact, sometimes some of our interventions are Are beneficial to our normal cell population.
Speaker 2:So it's been exciting for me to find such an easy solution to problems that have, like you know, I'm 45 years into treating cancer patients, finished at Stanford in 1989. So you know I'm now seeing the first long-term survivors. You know there may be one or two in the past 30 years, but in the last five years with glioblastomas not not everyone, mind you, I don't want to call that out. But until we used a blend of sort of low carbohydrate eating, ketogenic or modified ketogenic type diet, repurpose drugs that you know, draft metabolism of cancer cells mainly glucose and glutamine and amino acid, and hardly Some standard of care, and not everybody doing all standard of care. You know I've now seen people that are out three and four plus years where I didn't see that before.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's amazing. One of my favorite parts on the show is talking to Travis about ketones themselves and how they're, you know, beneficial to the body and but also can help with cancer, and reflecting that, like you always have trade-offs and medicine, it's always like you take this and it helps with this, but then you have these side effects. It's so rare that you have something that is bad for the cancer but also good for all those other tissues, like you said, yeah, and and we always, always, always have to say that. This is when we're talking about metabolic therapies in particular, we're talking about adjuncts to some standard of care. Whether that's the whole package of what people are getting chemo, radiation, surgery, debulking, whatever, or, or, you know, whatever they're choosing, we have to say that these adjuncts, this, this is not the cure for you know All those things. It doesn't replace standard cancer treatment.
Speaker 1:But we do have case studies. We have Pablo Kelly, who we interviewed a few months ago. He is alive nine and a half years later. He did nothing besides go. You know, mostly low-carb carnivore. So can it be done? Like it looks like it can be done, people are doing it. We have studies, case studies.
Speaker 2:Yeah, well, especially in some of these disease sites where, like you know, I see people all the time and you know you know one was most recently sort of a you know it wasn't a full glioblastoma, it was probably a grade two and a grade two Leoma, and they had a head surgery and you know, of course it wasn't. You can't ever get good margins on the brain and and they were told what you need to do chemotherapy now plus radiation. And you know this is a young, 35 year old person and I said, well, you know you want to use, you got a lot, you got a few tools in the toolbox. There's nothing that says doing that right away. He's gonna be, you know, absolutely necessary. Let's watch it and do metabolic therapies and if you go Three to five years before something shows up, that leaves more time for a novel therapy to drop out of the research sphere. Secondly, that's three to five years where you're not dealing with the side effects of, you know, post-operatiation and PCV chemotherapy in this individual, and so you know that was a little bit of a. Basically, I just planted that seed to discuss with their doctor and that's what they did and they're, you know, still watching it. They're on, you know, low-carb eating, metabolic therapies, optimization of their. You know.
Speaker 2:We, when we see people, you know, I kind of go through an onboarding and score everything in a simple below average average, or above average one to three, and I call it the metabolic optimization Protocol score calculator, you know. But we, we ask them about sleep nutrition. You know their breathing status. In fact, with glioma there's small study where people who just exercise parasympathetic, you know, promoting nostril breathing, had an improvement in their you know median survival. But also things that you know like hydration, using it as a great tool for getting rid of the byproducts of metabolism and reelectroliving your body in a good way, their stress patterns, their, their sort of goal-oriented mission alignment. Then also body measures like their BMI, their, your waist to height ratio. That's a predictor of longevity, you know. Granted, there are certain, you know, cultural populations that are, you know, might not fit into that project, on that model quite well, you know, like maybe Alaskan natives, or tend to be wider and shorter and they probably wouldn't have that same ratio prediction.
Speaker 2:We also look at, like the one-minute push-up tests, their fatigue scale, and then, from a laboratory standpoint, we kind of run the gamut here. We start with the measures of inflammation, looking at high sensitivity C-reactive protein Pheraton level. We also look at their detox detoxification Efficiency by the GGT level. We look at their metabolic profile, looking at hemoglobin A1c, their speculation called the HOMO IR, which really looks much further ahead. I mean I could. I see a lot of people that look okay on the hemoglobin A1c but they're insulin it. They have insulin resistance on the HOMO IR Just because it looks more in a more sensitive way. We calculate something called the Feldman ratio and they're on their lipids. We look at their their efficiency of methylation by the HOMO-16 level.
Speaker 2:We checked their thyroid, like today, on patient this morning who has recurrent prostate cancer. Ironically he was starting to fail in his thyroid now he had a lot of inflammation from four lifestyle choices. So I said let's fix that and see if your thyroid doesn't just correct before we put. You know we encourage you to get on Synthroid and be on it the rest of your life. We look at kidney function, liver function, bone marrow function Uric acid is a measure of fructose metabolism and other measures vitamin D level and we also look at morning cortisol and some you know basic electrolytes like magnesium and stuff. So we do that put in a calculator, find the variances, kind of narrow it down to the big three to five variances and then focus on those which have lifestyle interventions like resistance training or, you know, modified keto diet with some intermittent fasting, things like that. We we use some core supplements, you know mainly vitamin D3 with K2, mega three fish oils on a base low level for most people, like 2000 a day. We have some other For cancer patients were a little more aggressive at suggesting medium dose.
Speaker 2:Melatonin. It has Some good data to say it Reduces Ross, especially in the area of the brain, oxidative stress in the brain. We also I For for more prevention patients. We use, like an old drug, glucose mean sulfate. They find that that kind of works. Like metformin. There are three big studies showing improvement on all cause mortality, which you know is kind of a sleeper thing. People use that for joint health, mainly in the 80s and 90s and you know, up till recently we use and we're I'm excited about some other rug that are more pharmaceutical but in low dose, like metformin, torvastatin, one of the statins, and then we're looking ahead to consider even Serolumus which is a rap immune. There's some great data with that. It's in low dose. It's safe. The prices recently come down to make using it once a week for longevity work. Even you know, even now affordable used to be somewhat hard to hard to afford but you know it's generic and the prices recently come down Interesting.
Speaker 1:Wow, so many different tools you can use. I love how comprehensive that list was, but it was also very Practical and pragmatic. You can narrow it down by what are the biggest things that you're willing to work with, and I'm sure every patient is going to be a little bit different as far as what they are willing to do about their treatment. But but let's, let's just say you give me the diagnosis today. I Decide that I don't want to do any of the standard of care. I don't want radiation, I don't want chemotherapy, I don't want surgery. In your opinion, of all the tools you have, if I could choose one, in your opinion, what do you think would be the number one thing? You'd want me to walk out of your office thinking like, okay, I can do this one thing, I'm gonna nail it. What do you think would be the best chance? I know that's a very general question. Yeah, that's.
Speaker 2:That's a tough one now. But if you, if you, had active cancer, you know, sometimes I go to great lengths if I see low hanging fruit and I tell people. You know, I've been on this side of the fence and on this side of the fence and I try to use the best of both. Like I had a lady last week who had, you know, stage two breast cancer and she wanted to do just alternative therapies and she was already kind of progressing, doing a lot of supplements before she met me and I tried to convince her to have a stop date to say, hey, this is still probably in the curative zone. You know, I'm not gonna say that any surgery is minor, but you know, if she had to have a lumpectomy and actually dissection, you know that's not a bad thing to do she was a young lady to sort of get some confidence that no, this is out of your body and then we'll do as much as we can to. She might need to use some standard of care after that as well, but do as much as we can to enhance the outcome. If she does do, say, radiation to the chest wall and breast, then we can mitigate that with some pre-radiation. You know, slightly modified fasting, not like three-day fasting, but fasting from midday to the day before with, you know, some ketone enhancement right Before the radiation, which greatly mitigates the normal tissue side effects and makes the cancer cells actually more vulnerable. So I think if it was one thing it would probably be, you know, management of insulin insensitivity or insulin resistance. To get people eating low carbohydrate, to get people having some blend of intermittent fasting, get people, as long as they're not con-tech take a really low on their weight level, get people to do some version of exercising after their meals, mitigate that spike in blood sugar. And I think that would be the biggest thing they could do. And that generally in itself, you know, slows down cancer cell metabolism.
Speaker 2:You know, because you know if your insulin levels are riding, that, like the guy I saw the day he had a hemoglobin A1C of 5.7. So that doesn't look it's not great, but it's not terrible, you know, and he was off everybody's radar screen as having any sort of diabetic or pre-diabetes but he had an insulin level of 20. So insulin is an anabolic hormone. It tells cells, you know. You know 99% of our existence we ate every 24 to 36, 48 hours. So insulin was a survival benefit when we had food on board. It would tell our cells to make new cells because we had to replace those old ones. It would make, tell cells to grow through mTOR Number two, it would turn off fat burning because we now have substrate available.
Speaker 2:We want to save that remaining resource for a rainy day. And it also turned on, you know, storage of, like you know, fats and sugars for future use. So that all was good until we started, you know, having snacks and high sugar, like carbohydrate snacks every two to four hours. So now we're sort of like you know, polar bear trying to live in the desert we're out in, you know, hot Utah. It just is incompatible and that's why we're seeing those 14 metabolically driven cancers. That's why we're seeing all the itises that we see in, you know, in people today. And the beauty is when you start cleaning that up, all those itises the sinusitis, the centrophocytitis, the dermatitis, the chronic pulmonitis, you know all those things that people go to see individual doctors for, they sort of clear it up because you're not, in medical terms, pissing off your body, you know. So you know it just it's kind of neat to see that when you get someone who buys in.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's amazing. I agree, I kind of went there in my mind as well, like I've been carnivore for four and a half years, so I'm not too concerned with a lot of this stuff. I'm already eating a very low amount of carbohydrates, but the day I get a diagnosis, that would be the last day I would even look at any of the stuff. I would try to, you know, incorporate more fasting and that kind of thing, maybe be even a little bit more strict than I am today and I'd feel pretty good about that, knowing what I know now.
Speaker 1:But the patients thing, I think is really interesting too, because you know to send that person away and say, look, let's try this, let's have a date that we reanalyze and reevaluate. And we can always do other things. We can do chemotherapy, we can do radiation, we can do surgery. That's all still on the table. This isn't going to kill you today. So why not just try this? And at the very least, you hear stories all the time of, like, the tumor shrunk a little bit, so it was easier to debulk, and now it got out, and now it's like okay, I don't even know if we need chemotherapy or radiation. You might avoid that entire rigmarole.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah. So also too, if you know, if they downstage it and the pathological findings after some surgery look more favorable, then that's not a bad thing. And you know, like, see was it? Yesterday I saw a prostate cancer patient who actually was diagnosed in 2016. And now he's, you know, starting to fail again. He was from the Northeast, from Massachusetts, and, if he has a certain repop, you know, ironically, it's kind of funny how this worked out. But he was told by, like his urologist, you know, if he doesn't jump in, he's, you know, he's got he had a positive lead node on a PSMA PET scan that he's probably gonna only have a few years.
Speaker 2:Well, you know, that is a there's a delicate way to handle this stuff. If you see someone like walking away from like a really easy fix, you know that's. You know, I think it's reasonable to try to remind them that you got an opportunity here. Let's have a system in place. So we don't, you know, walk away and turn our backs on something that's highly fixable, but you don't want to, you know, bury people with a what I call a no-cebo effect. You know, putting the fear in them that something terrible is gonna happen because we can manifest that. You know, it's like the plus-cebo fact. You can sort of almost curse people by planting negative, you know thoughts in their head.
Speaker 2:Unfortunately, he was able to sort of like shake it off but, as I said, he he you know was back in 2016. And now I just thought of this as we were talking. He lives in Massachusetts and he recently had a rash that couldn't explain and he got it evaluated and his PSA had crept up to like six to seven. And he he was about two weeks, he had used doxycycline for Lyme's disease and that's one of our repurposed drugs and his PSA had already dropped to like 3.4. Now that was a pretty quick change. You know, sometimes you can have a 10 to 15% difference in PSA, especially if you measure at the same lab. If you go to different labs it could be a little different, but you know a 15% drop, you know, a few weeks into using this, you know, inexpensive, low-cost antibiotic for Lyme's disease and that's one of our primary repurposed drugs we use for, you know, in the care of cancer patients and it's not crazy science. I mean, there's a big university in England who's taken doxycycline and slightly changed the molecule and they call it doxy-SAR and they're taking it to a kind of a proud path to try to get a new drug indication. If it's a new molecule you can cash in again on it and call it your drug. In another one of our repurposed drugs, nibendazole, which is an anti-parasite drug, johns Hopkins is also doing that with a venture capital company. They've changed it slightly After doing a lot of research on brain tumors and pancreatic cancer.
Speaker 2:So a lot of these drugs may sound crazy to the local, regional oncologists but there's a lot of behind the scenes activities that if you dive into it you'll realize that these are safe, easy things to use and especially in a cocktail effect. You know they impact cancer along with standard of care and you know. If you think back and we were talking about the history of cancer you know leukemia used to uniformly and lymphoma used to uniformly kill everybody. But when they started using multiple drugs they called it once a front. Instead of waiting for resistance to develop, they kind of preempted it by using different acting drugs all at once, getting cure rates.
Speaker 2:Leukemia, like adult leukemia about 50% of people are now cured of it. Pediatric leukemia is much higher, the Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's, and lymphoma. Even AIDS is when they use multi-drug therapy and TB upfront Is that when they started fixing it they could talk about mathematical models. If you do, a lot of the time standard of care is treat with this combination. When you fail, jump in with plan B and then plan C and then pretty much run out of options. Our strategy is to use as many effective therapies that are tolerable upfront and, like repurposed drugs, lifestyle interventions, supplements that have utility, used upfront, right with the standard of care. If that's available and that's possible, that's when you have the best chance of fixing these things. That's what we're seeing in the clinic.
Speaker 1:Yeah, okay, that's amazing. You said something very interesting that I'd like to dig into a little bit. With the drugs you mentioned the older drug and being able to cash in on the drug as you repurpose it, you change it slightly. Now it's a new drug and so the drug company can then make money. I believe it's 15 years, don't they have a patent for 15 years before a medication becomes genetic.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it depends. If it's in orphan use it might be a little bit longer. It's usually like seven years and it starts when they do the research. But you can see it's about seven years after they get the research done. And as you know, I don't want to pick on the system, but they say about 80% of the drugs that get FDA approval now are not really new, novel interventions. They're sort of slight tinkering of older patented drugs right as they're about to come off patent. And then they make it a long extended use drug instead of a three time a day use drug or they modify it simply to kind of add something to it to prolong that patent. So we're not seeing a lot of new stuff come up. And that of course, because of how much money they spend. The FDA grants them the permission to charge to regain their investment. So that's why there's been no new cancer drugs in the last few years that aren't less than $30,000 a month. Everything's out of control.
Speaker 1:So that's what I'm wondering, like if these generic drugs are not being used and prescribed because nobody's really kind of studying them, because they're off patent, so the drug company is not motivated necessarily to continue learning and learning different things about it, would repurposing a drug and then remarketing it actually be a good thing, even if it does cost $100,000 a year or $1,000 a week, whatever the number is? Would that be almost like better, that at least it's getting attention and getting into people's hands who can afford it or have the insurance?
Speaker 2:Well, it might be say, if they repurpose the new version of Mbendazol in the next five to eight years it's going to have a big price tag. But then the army of oncologists that work in big hospitals that follow the menu of NCCN guidelines and best practices and all that stuff, it will probably get on their option list and it might be utilized. Yes, again, it doesn't fix healthcare because healthcare is out of control, expensive, and if you've had any interventions in the last few years you realize it's not going to get surprised anymore. Things are crazy. But so the question for me would be would like standard Mbendazol still be around to use Now?
Speaker 2:Mbendazol is a unique face because a company it was dirt cheap, it was out of patent Company picked it up for a lower price and then did a very small study on pinworming kids very quick, short study and got their own new indication because it wasn't proved for pinworm and now it was under a name I think Vermitz, and the company made it $400 a pill. So to get it to patients that would be affordable. And Canada is like six bucks a pill Still expensive for 30 days and doubling the doses. So we work with some pharmacies that import it from overseas. They have like an intermediary and then they validate its pharmaceutical grade by independent consumer lab testing company. Pharmaceutical grade means low attenuance and the potency that is intended and then they get it to these pharmacies and they put it in the capsules and we get it to patients at a reasonable price.
Speaker 2:It used to be a little better and now it's. I think they had this switch providers for Mbendazol so it got a little higher. But in general a normal one month package I'm told by the patients it's usually of like four to five drugs is usually in the range of like $80 to $100. And most of that is Mbendazol. Mbendazol is involved. So because of the compounding factor metformin, autorvastatin, doxycycline all those are very inexpensive.
Speaker 1:Yeah, interesting. Okay, you just always hear that like that will never happen. It will never be mainstream because people don't make money on really inexpensive generic drugs and you mentioned a few there. I know those are kind of the core four that you like to use. I would really prefer that somebody you know live a healthy life from an adolescent into adulthood and don't ever need medications. That would be my preference. That said, there is a place for medications for people that need them when they need them, and metformin for me seems to be one that is pretty maximally beneficial with not a lot of downsides as far as I understand. Would you agree, yeah?
Speaker 2:So it's interesting. You know I was probably like you, casey, I was an avid medication non-user. I'll fix it with lifestyle changes and how you eat and live and sleep and whatnot, and I wasn't a total choir bore. I worked hard, worked late, I did a lot of sports that were a little bit dangerous too mountaineering, whitewater, kayaking and that kind of stuff. But probably through working with Travis and Kerro-Oncology and sort of looking at this back data, I was like, well, you know that was very dismissive of the data with statins, because when it first came out I don't know if you remember the Time Magazine you know one of the beauties of like studying economics and understanding statistics and math is, you know, I was kind of looked at the value of this to an individual and I would always try to organize things into NNTs number needed to treat. How many people if I treat with this will it benefit? Because I have my own little sense of I'm going to get benefit one out of 50, and that means preventing a recurrence. That's sort of like an airplane in the wind. That's a very low probability.
Speaker 2:Now when the Time Magazine came out they said you know, like 34% reduction in cardiovascular events or death from cardiac events. That sounds really powerful. One out of three, 35%. But that was a relative risk reduction. That compared those who got the placebo or if it was those who didn't who got the drug and really it helped somewhere between. You know, if you looked at the air bars it helped as many as like one out of 35, who was one out of 130, you know, and so that was in the zone of walk away from that. It was only at like a five-year juncture.
Speaker 2:And there's an expert in lipids, dr Snyderman, who has kind of looked at it. He's a big advocate of looking at ApoB more as a marker than LDL or other markers. And if you look at the 30-year return the NNT really improves, mainly because we're all going to get never say never, never say always but most of us are going to get some sort of blood vessel disease that's going to affect the brain or the heart or just extremities, and that pretty much drops to one out of seven at 30 years. So to me, you know that starts to get pretty relevant If I can knock out vascular disease and it's not going to be all or none. But the death from cardiovascular event, you know, improves. One out of seven at 30 years probably is helping a lot of people's blood vessels in a less than causing death way. You know that becomes a better configuration.
Speaker 2:And then you can, you know, follow markers and look at it that way, like I just had a talk with my son who just hit 30, and he's, you know, a bit of a modified ketogenic guy. He lives really clean but you know he had a high ApoB and I said you know we might want to consider some early satin use for yourself. Now we had Foreman. You know we're all waiting for the TAME trial where they took healthy people and they put them on either placebo or metformin, because the original studies you know, where people with you know resumed diabetes showing a marked improvement and part of the reanalysis of that is, you know, there's some questions around it, but for me you're right, it's cheap, it's invisible to, I don't notice I'm having any side effects from it. I take now a low-joe statin and metformin routinely for prevention of disease. I think the two have some synergy together.
Speaker 2:I kind of go back to this trial from Taiwan where they found, you know, hepatitis is very common in the Orient and Asia and hepatitis is a viral infection that elevates your risk of many cancers, especially liver cancer, and they had 70,000 people that were positive and they looked at this big data set because everybody's on a national healthcare system there and it turned out that, you know, a big block of people were on a statin, a big block of people were on metformin, but they had 5,000 people total that were on both. And if you happen to be on both of them no, granted, population studies aren't perfect but if you happen to be on both of them, your rate of the like 10-mote common cancers went down dramatically, and so that was pretty relevant. I mean, the lowest amount it went down, it's like 28% compared to people not on both of them, and if you go on one of them it helped modestly, but if you're on both of them it was a powerful effect and so so the bet I'm hedging, you know, kind of figured this out. As you said earlier, they're not going to do clinical trials on this. They are doing a trial for metformin and then, once again, there's some trials out there for, as I mentioned earlier, on this other rug that's out there called serolumus or rapamune, and that looks very promising.
Speaker 2:There's a molecular testing organization, it's called ITP and it's three labs around the country that have best practices they use the most, you know, lab animals for testing can get so inbred that it doesn't really reflect normal biology that might reflect what might happen in a human, but they use sort of the least inbred version of the lab mice. There's a whole science behind that. And they test molecules and you know they've tested resveratrol, they've tested metformin, they've tested, you know, nadh, they've tested, you know, the 17 estrodial and rapamune. And rapamune had some of the best results. They actually tested it in the chow daily and one of the most relevant things about it was they had some problem getting it in the chow and, you know, making sure it didn't get broken down in the, you know, acidity digestive process.
Speaker 2:So the mice got older and they're like, oh, we maybe don't even want to test them because you know, you know we don't usually start with mice that are already three-fourths of their normal age range, but they did it anyway. They found that there was still like a 35% improvement in survival even though the mice were like three-fourths of their normal age. So kind of extrapolate that to a human, which is always a little bit dangerous, you know, for like a 60-year-old fella or a woman, it might be beneficial. Usually we think, well, the diet is already cast, you should have started at 40 or 30. But you know, that looks impressive that you could start that late in life and have some impact. So more than you know the stories you have to be told there, but a lot of excitement around that.
Speaker 1:Interesting. Okay, you're kind of blowing my mind on something that I don't think I've ever like really considered. So I'm so excited to ask you about this. The statin thing. This comes up on our show all the time.
Speaker 1:A very prominent cardiologist I don't need to use the name, but you know and I know and everybody who is probably knows who he is. You know is a longevity expert. He's written an amazing book about longevity and everybody in the low-carb space is like okay, I'm on board with 95% of everything this guy is saying, but he's still saying that he's very pro-statin for some people. And we have this, this cohort of people in the low-carbohydrate space it's not many, but it is some that if they have a low enough BMI and they go low enough carbohydrate, their LDL cholesterol goes really, really high through the roof. Thus their APOB is also going to be very high through the roof. And so it's this kind of push and pull of like saying like, okay, we, I thought the number needed to treat was 229 with a statin, but I had never considered the longer you use it, the better that number gets, and that is an interesting justification of taking a statin.
Speaker 1:I had never really ever considered Would you be concerned about lean mass hyper responders and they're kind of like I don't know, like, not necessarily resistance, but almost like this, like air of like celebration that their cholesterol is so high.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so you know it's interesting. You know there was just a paper in one of the longevity journals I got on my phone but it's. They looked at the laboratory values of centenarians and you know they had a great big it was Swedish population where everybody's in the same. You know EMR, electronic medical record and they looked at the markers that were. Of those people there was like two to 3% that made it to over a hundred and high cholesterol was one of the outliers. So it may be that higher cholesterol and this is just total cholesterol is a predictor. You know, in some ways it's protective.
Speaker 2:Now I would say for those people that are hyper responders, you know, don't so much worry about your total cholesterol or your. You know your LDL purely. You know I like the Feldman ratio. You know it's the triglycerides over the HDL. You want that to ultimately be one or less. You know you want an HDL that's higher than your LDL. That's a prediction of very low risk, even with a background of family history diabetes, hypertension or smoking which you know some of that is in the past. You can't fix that.
Speaker 2:But also I'd also say it's not a bad idea to look at and I'm not a cardiologist, but I just read a lot. You know, once at some point get an LP little a and that's a, a marker, it's a little lipo chain that is, I guess, apparently very inflammatory. So when you know LDL goes to, you know to, to, to bring healing cholesterol to like endothelial lining, you know areas of turbulence or break in the lining, this somehow creates inflammation and in the statistic that I have heard is that if you look at those people that die of sudden cardiac death, meaning the first symptom is, you know, you know the flat line which is really scary. You know, and I think probably guys like you, casey, wouldn't have that because you've you've done a lot of extreme stuff and if it was going to happen or what had happened, but anyway, apparently 50% of those have very high LP little a's, lp little a's over 100. And so if you got that you want to go into, like you know, hyperalert on dealing with it and you statins don't really lower the LP little a. You only have to do it once because it's kind of a genetic thing that you know. If you got it, you got it. But some of the newer, you know, you know PCSK9 inhibitors apparently lower it like 30, 40% and other things you can do to can lower it.
Speaker 2:And you know heart disease is, is not something to to totally ignore. A lot of lifestyle stuff makes a big difference. You know, obviously. You know good muscle mass, good quality muscle, good muscle percent on, you know, on nexus scans and stuff like that, that all correlates with good outcomes with all four of the chronic common diseases. But within that, if you can optimize that, I think it's not a bad idea to do it. I always remind people, you know, like I, if I'm going to do a big bike ride, I probably won't take my, my statin that day. You know I'll, like you know, take it the next day and you know there's nothing to be said. You can't sort of use it a few days a week, um, but keep an eye on that ApoB Very, very interesting.
Speaker 1:I really appreciate that very well thought out and thoughtful opinion on that. I guess, yeah, it's, it's so, it's so nuanced. And again, in the low carb space, we just poo poo anybody who wants to prescribe statins. And one of the most fascinating sessions at low carb Denver this year was the panel of cardiologists. Um, I think Nina Tyshals was on the stage as well and you've got all of these like amazing cardiologists. Um, amy Berger came up to me later and said we should not have all of these people all on the stage at the same time, like if the stage collapsed and we lost all of them at the same time. It'd be a terrible, terrible loss.
Speaker 2:They shouldn't be in the same place.
Speaker 1:But? But you had two cardiologists that were sitting there and they were having a heated but respectful discussion and one was saying you should never, ever, ever prescribe statins and the other one says I work with people, I prescribe it to them and it does help people. So I don't really know the truth. It's just two different opinions and we're never going to have like the exact study that says, in this exact situation, this is going to be the very best thing. It's just you've got to make judgment calls. So I I really appreciate that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I, you know I started off taking 40. Once again, I just started, you know, like the age of 60, 61 and like I might be having a little bit of, like earlier, muscle cramping when I like all of a sudden run up three flights of steps to get something, or you know, I just things started, I noticed in a little bit but I could still go out and do you know hard stuff. You know I this year I had a group of my high school friends. We did the bike ride across Iowa which is sort of the reg bri.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And and you know it was like really hot. It's the end of July, it's always hot, but it was really hot. And you know we all, you know you know I was taking my statin and had no problem. I mean I sweated my brains out but you know I finished it and so it's not like any. You know there are like a rare patient in the I think I had carinology. We had six doctors in those days. We had another five or six over in England Once a year within that big, like giant group. You know somebody would have almost like an allergic reaction where they felt like three days into it they were like a frozen robot with pain everywhere and of course you got to pull back. And I, you know things that go through my head. Is they, if they so borderline in their coq 10 enzymatic function that like that statin just froze them up? Or is it just some serious snip where they just can't process it? Well, I don't know. But you know, every once in a while you see that that's very interesting.
Speaker 1:That's pretty much like the only thing that I hear is that will happen to pretty much everybody and it's it's a huge side effect that most people experience, and I know that's not the case. So again, I really appreciate that opinion. It really shifted my thinking.
Speaker 2:And you know we always everything shared decision making. If somebody says it's a non-starter, we're like, okay, you know it, I didn't know. They said, can I use like red red yeast rice, and so we don't have any anti-cancer data with that, you know it does drop. You know LDL a bit, but it works, I think through some of the similar. You know inhibition of liver enzymes, but you know. So from a cancer standpoint we just go to other options and we use a lot of the different statins as well. You know, like somebody has probably with a corvus statin, we go to a simbacatin and then lovacatin. If they have mainly a liver cancer, we'll probably start with a water soluble statin like provacatin. So there's some you know decision making and you know if I'm, if I'm seeing a 100-pound woman that is, you know, already lost a lot of muscle mass and body mass and is on chemotherapy, I'm going to start at the 10 milligram or 20 milligram dose, not 40 or 80, you know. So everything is customized and then the liver function test goes into that too. So it's not, I guess it's not. You know willy-nilly how we make decisions on it and we try to get people to repeat those safety labs, complete metabolic panel and CBC, look at liver, kidney, basic bone marrow every two to three months. Most of them are getting it if they're on treatment and then the pre-cancer patients. We try to repeat the whole panel at, you know, at like a three month and six month interval, and you know it's people actually like it.
Speaker 2:I mean, you know, I had a guy who I did the bike ride with. He was much younger and very fit and he, you know, he was the first to finish. You know he's in his early 40s and he you know he was the first to finish was always waiting for us at the stop and I'm at the finish, anyway, and he, great guy. So we started talking as we got to know each other. He said I had a big cardiac workout a year ago because I got some family history.
Speaker 2:Although I feel great and I think I'm bulletproof, I said, well, if you want to do, I do this panel. And if you're worried about cardiac, then I ask him if they did this and they did this and they didn't. We did a big panel and there were some serious signals. It's better to hear about it in the discussion rather than hear about it when you're in the emergency room, sure. So we got on some prevention stuff. But it was surprising to me that he went in and got a calcium scan and a home-nary workup and a lot of stuff done, but he didn't get an LP, little A or an ApoB Interesting. So that's our system. Right now it's still in transition.
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, this has been an amazing conversation. I just looking at the introduction and seeing all the different things that you're working with on people, it's like you said earlier To me it's like a toolbox. There's so many other things that we can use, even just to help things along a little bit. There are lots of low hanging fruit that people probably just don't even know about. Like, if you told them to take some fish oil that they probably just didn't even know that's very easy to take fish oil. Like. There's so many cool things.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Well you know there's the researcher, tom Wood, who's a PhD neuro I think he's a neuro physiologist, but he works in sort of the anti-aging of the brain, he calls it. I love this. He said homocysteine and fish oils are the unused lottery ticket that sits in everybody's pocket that they never ploy. Wow, and he's got pretty good data now from some studies that he has correlated. But if you have a homocysteine level over nine and your fish oil balance, your mega three to six and nine balance isn't in the ideal range, which is like one to three or one to four to five or so. They sampled a bunch of army recruits that were apparently looking healthy and qualified to survive the boot camp of the army and their average ratio was one to 25. So that's how many mega nongs were getting through our processing non grass fed, non natural fed animal diet. But anyway, he said you know that's the unused lottery ticket, so a lot of people walking around and that's an easy thing to fix. You know I. You know I use methylated B vitamins. That lowered my homocysteine years ago to under nine, and you know, and so there's a lot of easy things you can do. Now I have a part of my webpage, you know it's called the toolbox and I said so you can't spend a lot of time telling people how to fast or how to maintain muscle mass or how to, you know, use ketones. And you know I said I got a two to three page sort of you know attachment I'm going to send in this encrypted email when I send your notes to you. So I do a lot of that and a lot of stuff is really simple. It's like what's the most important thing I've learned in healthcare in the last few years. I hate to say it it's so simple. It's wake up in the morning, rehydrate and reelectrify your you know, your cell membranes. So a good bowl of water and electrolyte and it really just turns things on. And you know that helps you, you know, get rid of the byproducts of metabolism from the night and kind of resets the charges around the body. So you work. Now you can do that slowly through the day, but why not do it right up front? So I got a whole recipe on doing that stuff and you know, as you said, some of the things are really simple. You should have said we're not thinking about them or not doing them, or and so forth. But yeah, we'll try to emphasize that at Meakin Metabolic. I said I was excited about something coming up.
Speaker 2:There's a company out of India that is just brought a what they call blood biopsy. It's a just blood drawl where they do three tubes and they look at circulating tumor cells. Now, even if you don't have cancer, there's a possibility of I mean, if you don't have known cancer. We're making foul balls all the time and usually our immune system figures that out and cleans it up. And as you get older you're making more foul balls and you're also probably have a less, you know, less highly developed immune system to sort of identify those abnormals.
Speaker 2:And you got other things that are flawed too, you know.
Speaker 2:So they have a blood test that has been pretty well validated, apparently on like 40,000 people that has really good stats, you know, specificity and sensitivity on identifying early cancers, and so that might be a breakthrough that will, you know, change the dynamic instead of waiting for physically visible cancers or a lot of times it's latter stage, you know they're picking up things early enough to some point where you know they actually not only can find circulating tumor cells, they can identify the source most of the time. So they might say you know you have a positive signal for you know, say, colorectal cancer. So you then know to go in and get greened and you know, do a CEA, a tumor marker or other tests to see what's going on. It might be that nothing's found but you would jump really hard into a prevention program. It might have been like submucosal very early and that presents a little bit of a discussion point. But I am hoping that we have some sort of better screening tool to find earlier cancers. You know shortly.
Speaker 1:Yeah, me too. I've heard that the liquid biopsy thing is not gone as well as we would have hoped, but that there is hope coming up, so that's amazing. You already mentioned your website. Your website is very well done, has tons and tons of information. This has been an awesome discussion. I've really, really enjoyed this. Where would you like people to go to find you and connect with you in your work?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so if you go to coacheditforwardchuckcom, that's a my original charity website where I was just I was doing charity coaching and then I went back to school and started working for Care Oncology and then morphed into Mekin Metabolic Care, so I have meekinmetaboliccarecom, but both sources have some overlapping information. We do a blog once a month on topics that are interesting to people in the metabolic space. This most recent was sort of a deep dive into vitamin C high dose vitamin C therapy for cancer patients. You know some of what that is there. What are the costs? I had done that like two years ago, but we did it again. And then also I sent out twice a month newsletter where I look through the best metabolic magazines, podcasts, journals. You know websites and pull three articles that I think are relevant, and so that's easy. It's free, all that stuff's free, and so please go to the websites and sign up. We'd appreciate it.
Speaker 2:And you know the prevention program for those that are interested might be more your listeners is sort of the what we call the MOP program. That incorporates three months of supplements, costs of the drugs, the labs. It's a pretty, it's a very nice value for oh my goodness, I think it's like $800. So basically you're getting $1,500 for the labs, but if you went and paid directly we can get that for much less, plus the doctor visit, plus the meds. You know, it's usually maybe two prescriptions, depending on the person of course, maybe three and then the core five supplements and or, if you, if you don't think you want that whole thing, I could just do a doctor visit or a doctor visit plus the labs.
Speaker 2:I had one of those today with with a cancer patient, so he had done the labs last week and we added, because he had some unique issues, like we can add the extra cardiac blood tests, like the April B LPA. We can add the known cancer screening tumor markers in a woman or a man. We can add a deep dive on the thyroid. We can add, you know, food sensitivity stuff. We don't have to get into that until we don't solve it with simple stuff Because you know, deep down I'm a real frugal guy and I don't want to spend your money and I want to keep the system's low cost simple and easy.
Speaker 1:That's fantastic. You do such a great job with all of that, and getting that information out is wonderful. One more time, the website is amicametaboliccarecom, is that right?
Speaker 2:Yes, and it's M E A K I N K I N Metabolic care dot com.
Speaker 1:Perfect.
Speaker 2:And then the other one is like pay it forward but it's poach it forward, chuck dot com.
Speaker 1:Perfect, we'll link both of those in the show notes. Dr Charles, this has been an amazing conversation. Thank you so very much for taking the time out of your very busy life to come and educate us about simple and inexpensive ways to help cancer. I don't think anybody out there is not affected by this directly. So thank you so very much for all of your work and thank you for taking time to be on our show today. We really appreciate you.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much, casey. It's been, it's been a pleasure, and Travis Christopherson and I are hoping to be at the metabolic conference in Tampa in January. He's coming to my place in Florida, we hope, and then we're going to drive over and so if, if any of you are there, please come up and say hello.
Speaker 1:Amazing, well for sure. Thank you so very much. We really appreciate it, and this has been another episode of Balanced Body Radio. As always, thank you so very much for listening to Balanced Body Radio. I know I say this all the time, but I really do mean it. It has been such a joy to make and produce this podcast and to watch it grow.
Speaker 1:Our business started in the pandemic in July of 2020 and we started the podcast in October of 2020. So it has been three years now, and to see that we have generated over 400,000 downloads worldwide is just simply unbelievable to me, this year in particular has been such a blast to travel to different health conferences and not only meet some of our amazing guests, but also to meet many of you, our listeners and supporters. We really just can't thank you enough. As always, feel free to book a complimentary 30 minute session on our website, which is mybalancedbodycom. On our homepage, there is a book now button where you can find a time to speak with us about health, fitness, nutrition, whatever you like.
Speaker 1:We've loved chatting with people all over the world and many of you out there to bounce ideas off each other or to try to come up with plans to achieve specific goals, or even if it's just to reach out to introduce yourselves. We would just love to meet you and connect with you there. Also, be sure to check out our YouTube channel if you would like to watch these full interviews and also the shorter interviews on more specific topics that are taken from these full interviews. We've gotten really good feedback over there. It's also a really fun way to interact with people who comment. We read and reply to every single YouTube comment we get, so head on over there.
Speaker 1:If you want to start a conversation and watch these videos as always if you haven't already, please leave us a five star rating and review on Apple. It really is the best way to make sure this podcast gets out there to more listeners. We've been able to keep Balanced Body Radio ad-free for three years and really want to continue to do so, and so your five star ratings and reviews are the best way to support us at Balanced Body and support the podcast. Cheers. Thank you again so very much for listening to Balanced Body Radio.