On today’s episode of the Flex Diet Podcast, Ian Mitchell, founder of Weird Sciences and I delve deep into physics, experiments, performance, and sports supplements. Enjoy this wide-ranging and often “out-there” discussion.
Today’s episode is brought to you by the Mike T Nelson website. Sign up for my fitness insider newsletter for daily training, nutrition, and sports performance tips.
Listen to hear:
[6:37] Quantum biology and experiment design
- [27:20] Asking the right questions
- [35:36] Cognitive neuroscience
- [50:19] Meditation
- [1:02:10] Humans are drawn to extremes
- [1:14:07] Wizard Sciences and solving specific problems
Connect with Ian:
- Instagram Ian Mitchell
- Wizard Sciences 15% Product Discount. Note: this is not an affiliate link and I make no money on it, as I wanted to stay impartial. I would love to hear your data, though, so hit me up.
Ian is an inventor, scientist, biochemist, and founder of Wizard Sciences. At Wizard Sciences they work to develop groundbreaking supplements to help with brain function, anti-aging, and performance optimization. Ian has a wide array of milestones, including working with NASA astronauts and Olympic athletes to help optimize performance through his research and supplements to support human potential.
Dr. Mike T Nelson
Dr. Mike T Nelson
PhD, MSME, CISSN, CSCS Carrick Institute Adjunct Professor Dr. Mike T. Nelson has spent 18 years of his life learning how the human body works, specifically focusing on how to properly condition it to burn fat and become stronger, more flexible, and healthier. He’s has a PhD in Exercise Physiology, a BA in Natural Science, and an MS in Biomechanics. He’s an adjunct professor and a member of the American College of Sports Medicine. He’s been called in to share his techniques with top government agencies. The techniques he’s developed and the results Mike gets for his clients have been featured in international magazines, in scientific publications, and on websites across the globe.
- PhD in Exercise Physiology
- BA in Natural Science
- MS in Biomechanics
- Adjunct Professor in Human
- Performance for Carrick Institute for Functional Neurology
- Adjunct Professor and Member of American College of Sports Medicine
- Instructor at Broadview University
- Professional Nutritional
- Member of the American Society for Nutrition
- Professional Sports Nutrition
- Member of the International Society for Sports Nutrition
- Professional NSCA Member
[00:00:00] Dr Mike T Nelson: Welcome back to the Flex Diet Podcast. I’m your host, Dr. Mike T. Nelson, and on this podcast we talk about all things to enhance your performance, improve body composition, and do it all without destroying your health in a flexible process To start, and today on the podcast. I’ve got Ian Mitchell from Wizard Science and he also runs a whole ton of other companies, and I will warn you that we go right into it at the start with a discussion heavy into physics and a bunch of other stuff.
That sounds very woo. But what I love about Ian is that he is constantly testing things. And I’ve seen him change his opinion based on actual data. So I know the conversation sounds a little bit woo, but I always enjoy talking to people who are definitely on the edge, but up here to be getting results.
A friend of mine told me years ago to look for the weirdos that are getting results. Maybe they’re onto. And again, doesn’t mean that they’re always right, but in a few years, few months, we’ll have more data and maybe they are correct. But either way, super fascinating discussion. I had a great time talking to him.
I want to give a big thanks to my buddy. Ben Polski is where I first heard Ian on and , I talk about this in the podcast, but I sent Ben a text and I. , is this guy completely full of crap or is he like a legitimate genius? And Ben texted me back, he’s no, I think he’s a legitimate genius. For sure.
I was like, ah, interesting. Big thanks to Ian for his time here. And in terms of product placement or anything like that we do have a discount for you, however, it’s not an affiliate link. I don’t make any d any darn money off. Go to wizardscience.com/discount/nelson. That’ll save you 15% off a one-time purchase.
We do talk about some of the sports supplements he has there at the very end. And what I would love to do is have this be a way for you to test it out at a discount and let me know what you find. I’m gonna be doing this coming. By the time this goes out, I’ve already started for a few days, so I’ll report back in the future on the newsletter with what I find.
But I would love for you guys to, to test it out. Give me a ring, let me know what you find, yay or nay. will say I have purchased some of his other supplements, which for. Were helpful. Was definitely helpful for my wife. Tried it out on a couple clients and the results were a little bit mixed.
But again, could be something going on with their physiology that was different with mine also. So go to wizardscience.com/discount/nelson . Discount Nelson. and we’ll put a link in the show notes and everything here for you. Again, it’s not even an affiliate link. I actually turned down any affiliate commission, so I wanted to try to stay as impartial as possible, give you guys a discount, and I would love to hear about your data.
If you wanna hear more about experiments and everything I’m doing, go to www.miketnelson.com. Get onto the newsletter, which is entirely free, and that’s where I send most of my content. So things I’m working on, tips that have been useful for clients, all things to increase your performance, add muscle, and get better body composition in a flexible approach.
So enjoy this wide ranging and out there conversation at times. With Ian Mitchell of Wizard.
[00:04:09] Ian Mitchell: We haven’t met before, so kinda gimme the rundown. What sorts of stuff do you do? I know you’re a doctor obviously, so Yeah,
[00:04:16] Dr Mike T Nelson: gimme the rundown. Yeah, I did a PhD in exercise physiology metabolism. Looking at the concept of metabolic flexibility and heart rate variability, thee title was fine.
Scale variability across physiologic systems, right? So looking at every system we’ve looked at, if we look fine enough, we see that normal has a little bit of oscillation, whether that’s breathing, weight, sway, heart rate. So we were trying to extend that concept to metabolism. We look at r eer basically the ratio of fats or carbohydrates during steady state exercise.
It’ll move around a little bit at steady state. And we saw on a pilot data, some overweight people, it did not move around much at all. So our hypothesis was could we do variability analysis of that r e r and use that to differentiate. Metabolically healthy versus unhealthy population without having to do insulin CLA study or pull a lot of bloods or even high intensity exercise.
This is all 30 or
[00:05:16] Ian Mitchell: 60% of et. Wow. That’s actually, and so I take it, it all proved out that definitively there is a correlation that you could draw data from that would support the hypothesis that is in fact the case.
[00:05:30] Dr Mike T Nelson: Yeah. We have two, two groups of pilot data that was published, and then the study I did initially was, step one, do a gauge r and r.
Is this method even repeatable? If you have different observers, you’ve got your protocol. And so what I showed was yeah, it is. And then I left, finished my PhD, published a study on energy drinks, another one on heart rate variability. And then, when you do an advanced degree, like kind of some of the stuff you’ve done in your own head, you’re like, This is amazing.
Someone else is gonna find this research and they’re gonna show that it definitely happens. And now no one give a shit like, no to this day. Nobody even cares, , so no one’s ran the experiment of, oh my God, does it actually mean anything or not? I don’t know. I think so, but
[00:06:12] Ian Mitchell: Oh my God.
That is, dude, you’re, you are preaching to the choir, Mike. That is so true, man. There’s some things like when you hit it, you’re like, ah, you’re makeup, the Archimedes moment, you’re like, ah, this is amazing. Crickets. Total crickets.
[00:06:27] Dr Mike T Nelson: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I’m like, Hey man if I’m wrong, cool. Just run the experiment and show me that I’m wrong.
I don’t have any problem with that, but it’s no one’s like me. .
[00:06:37] Ian Mitchell: Yeah. It’s actually, it’s funny, a lot of the quantum biology stuff that I’ve been doing I think it’s because it’s still somewhat fringe, actually not somewhat fringe. It’s very decidedly fringe. That it’s difficult to grapple with because it takes where we currently are and it’s almost, it’s pushing it a little farther and then having to make a couple of jumps and logic and extrapolation to actually arrive at.
What’s most likely happening to even come up with a really concrete hypothesis about how these things are functioning. I can get the data sets, I can make repeatable data sets. Anybody else could do the experiment. I could show ’em how to structure it. I have no doubt that they would get the same data sets, but I just think it’s gonna fall on deaf ears because it’s such a jump in logic from where we are in the very, macro scale molecular world to say, yeah, this is great and all, but it actually really has to do with vibrations, but not vibrations in a spectra or a spectrum that, that we can actually assess yet because we’re, meaty creatures and , we’re too solid to actually be that granular and see what’s really affecting what we really are.
And it’s just, it’s a bitch because everything is structured around the idea that the universe is like a big machine. When I was telling a friend of mine Luke’s story, the same thing and I said it, it’s very much obvious that we are more a thought than a thing. , we’re I, based on the data that I’ve been, been doing actually generating experimental data that’s repeatable that anybody could do.
And I’ve been doing it in, in a double blinded fashion with a professor that I work with where I used to teach and then the guys from Lila Quantum, we’re showing all sorts of bizarre facts that are only bizarre because the constructs that we’ve been approaching them with, which is, everything is a material thing first.
Actually, it seems that it’s really not, it seems like things are conscious first and then physicality is the epiphenomenon of consciousness, not the other way around. No. I think for probably the majority of, time people say oh, You have a body, your body has a heart, and you have a brain, and your brain produces thoughts.
And then, that gives us an awareness. And it’s our complicated thought process. And, neural potentiation and firing that does this in a complicated network. I don’t actually think that’s the case. I’m actually at this point completely in the camp of, we have a consciousness, and the consciousness produces a coalesced form of vibrations around that basis, that aggregates to form a physical presence.
And then things derive from that. And, if you think about it, it explains, no pun intended so many things. The effect of placebo. If you propagate a vibration and you’re thinking about something and your consciousness is pushing something in one direction, the aggregate of that ripple.
Could have tangible effects, right? There’s an electrochemical potentiation typically in a thought, right? And if not electrochemical, there’s definitively an electrical potentiation. Every time there’s a thought just basic physics. We know that creates a ripple, right? There’s an electromagnetic pulse.
If that pulse is actually the thing that really has fundamental bearing on the reality in which we’re occupying space, then it’s possible that it elicits some sort of tangible behavior. And that’s with a lot of the quantum biological effects, that’s what we’re seeing is that thoughts affect things. It’s like the double slit experiment, right?
[00:09:55] Dr Mike T Nelson: Yeah, explain that? Cause I’ve looked at that and the first couple of times someone told me about it, I was like yeah, whatever. And then the more I looked into it, I was like I don’t
[00:10:03] Ian Mitchell: know, . So how would the active observation affect the outcome of something going from basically a principle of.
A quantum state, right? To via, Schrodinger or something like that, where it’s occupying both spaces at once and then suddenly collapsing the waveform and becoming a definitive particle. That only can really happen if the two things are intrinsically related, right? It’s not gonna happen if they’re objectively separated.
It’s only going to happen if they’re subjectively related. And I think that’s why that experiment is so perplexing is because if you think of it in the sense of we’re physical creatures first and waveforms second, it, it doesn’t make any sense, right? If you think of everything as collected or collective of vibratory functions, it starts to make sense.
So for people who don’t know the concept basically, If you have something and you fire particles, be it photons or electrons through two slits if they’re a waveform, they propagate differently and there’s carryover of the waveform and it moves as a wave. But the moment the experiment is observed, those waveforms collapse and they act as if a particle, so the wave particle duality is basically proven out that yes, light can in fact be both things but it collapses upon observation. And if you think about are you familiar with the 2022 Nobel Prize and physics for, proving Bell’s Theorem? No. The basically the idea was Einstein had this thing, he and Neil’s Bo used to have this argument about.
Spooky action at a distance is what Einstein called it. Yes. And Einstein didn’t buy it, didn’t think it could happen, but, in, in fact, excuse me, it does happen. But he was wrong in the sense that it’s not two objects remotely being interacting and being entangled.
What happens is once they become entangled, they actually become one wave form. So despite the fact that they’re two objects from our perspective, they in fact act as if they’re one wave form. And so when you pick up one end of the stick, it doesn’t matter whether the other end of the stick is a foot away from you or on the other side of the universe, it’s still one collected waveform.
[00:12:29] Dr Mike T Nelson: Yeah. That’s the part I think that trips me out is because as humans we think of distance has to have some sort of factor to it. The fact that these two things are maybe next to each other. Yeah, I can buy that. They’re probably related to each other. They’re, 5,000 miles apart and they’re both doing the same thing.
[00:12:45] Ian Mitchell: it’s I think one of the other things is I don’t know. There, there are a lot of constructs that based on that data being very definitively proven, and based on the experiments that I’ve been doing with quantum biology lately, I’m beginning to even wonder whether distance is really what we perceive it to be.
Whether it’s actually really as impactful because the idea of even waveforms propagating across one side of the universe to the other instantaneously because they scientists have actually in the past couple of years clocked using femtosecond pulse lasers. They’ve actually clocked the speed of set entanglement.
and it was at a minimum over a hundred thousand times faster than the speed of light now. Yeah. That’s pretty damn quick. Yeah. , it’s faster than I can make it through downtown Austin traffic right now. For all intents and purposes it’s simultaneity, right? It’s instantaneous transmission of information.
And that kind of begs the question, as a human, are we even looking at the right thing? Are we asking the right questions? And I think to a certain extent, more likely than not, we probably aren’t, it’s so far, like you just said, it’s so far removed as a person. When you’re observing these things and you start to drill down into the granularity of it doesn’t make sense.
Logically you can’t cog, oh, I can do this here and do it there all at the same time. It’s difficult to grapple with, the whole adage of you can’t be two places at once. Actually you probably can in fact be two places at once. If you pumped enough energy through the waveform that is a person, why not?
What’s to say that you can’t in fact be two places at once? It’s just our concept of what is obvious on macroscopic behavior is so detached from what is relevant in quantum behavior, that it’s an entirely different set of rules that you’re playing by. It’s just I think that’s actually what I like about it is the science is undecided as of yet in terms of, biological effects of quantum behavior.
So it’s not just having to memorize things and learn things by rote. We actually have to think and really scratch our heads and puzzle. Yeah. I think actually quantum biology is in the same position that quantum physics was a hundred years ago. We really have to start rewriting the rules of yes, we are a hot, kind of squishy, wet system, but what does that actually mean?
For the longest time we only thought quantum behavior would exist with, things that were at absolute zero and under very special states and, differing states of matter that we’re the exotic states. And now it turns out it’s happening all the time inside our own brain. , it’s there, there are bits of our neural processing where things aren’t very much moving in, in quantum behaviors, and it’s just fun for me to grapple with that.
Your brain is basically a quantum computer. Who knew? Do you
[00:15:43] Dr Mike T Nelson: think the negative of that, and I know I’m guilty of this too, like when someone starts. I’m talking about quantum physics, it’s very easy for my eyes to glaze over. Cause I’ve tried to look at it. I just have this barely, just a little bit of a grasp of it that sometimes it feels like it’s almost like smoke and mirrors of, oh, trust me, this is quantum based.
Whatever widget 4 65 is, I don’t know. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that without at least any experimental data to say, how do you know? How did you test it? What
[00:16:17] Ian Mitchell: did you do, ? Yeah. Actually, it’s funny that you say that. That’s one of my things is, that’s why I’ve been doing all these double blinded studies is because for, my role as the, the scientific advisor for Lu La Quantum, It’s great to say that it’s, it’s quantum, but most times when I hear people say that, oh, it’s, it’s imbued with quantum, this or that, right?
My, my bullshit meter goes off and I’m like, yeah, sorry. No. . , and you’re with I just don’t, I don’t buy it. Intrinsically I think that the term quantum is used for a lot of smoke and mirror stuff because people don’t generally grasp it. They can’t handle the math behind it, if somebody’s not gonna bust out SRO Ander’s equation and understand it, like they’re not really gonna grasp what’s actually happening for the most part.
So I think a lot of times marketing people use that and just run with it. But if you do the, if you do the work and you do the experience and you can prove it to me cases, the guys at Le La Quantum, that was one of the things I really appreciated, is they were definitively showing biological effects.
And so I wanted to do the same thing in terms of okay, how can we do a double blind with this and show cellular effects at a distance? How can we show that we’re entangling these things? How can we, and so that’s been fun to to play with. But I was on a call with a company that’s doing quantum stuff and said, that’s great, and I’ll but we need to do brain scans to prove the behavior out.
, if this isn’t in fact the case and you are listening to this behavior, then we can either put up or shut up. If I’m gonna get on board, we have to verify it and say that yes, this is true. We can prove it in a repeatable, double blind fashion that this is what’s going on. And I think that’s one of the things that’s generally missing is like, how do you do that?
And with, I always joke that we don’t have a chronometer yet. . Cause in terms of the scale, the best kind of thing that you’re gonna find is I’ve got. A lot of spectroscopy equipment, h hps, gcms, lcms, all this mass spec kind of stuff. And really all that tells us at this point in, where we are in the sciences.
Is this thing something that we recognize, right? What is this in terms of compositional structure? So this molecule is this molecule. As it turns out, and I know this because I’ve seen the differentiation in terms the results of different experiments that we’ve done. Just because something is in effect the same molecule, it doesn’t mean that it exhibits the same molecular behavior.
And I did this experiment on stage at the biohacking conference in 2020. And you confide it. It’s on YouTube where the the guys at Lila asked me if I could do something that was demonstrable on stage so people could see that we were eliciting a shift in quantum function. And so what I came up with was I took someone that had a really horrible shellfish allergy and brought them on stage and I derma rolled one of their arms, and then I opened a can of crab and took the juice and rubbed it on their arm and their arm instantly swelled up.
It had a histamine reaction, the welds and it, which is effectively, the old school dermal stamp test that everybody’s used to. Yep. And so then I put the crab meat in the quad block and I talked about, quantum behavior a little bit and wave form dynamics and ask people to imagine a wave.
And everybody of course, thinks of something like that. But really that’s a very. Basic assessment of it. It’s actually, if you really want to think of A wave is more like spheres that are oscillating and undulating that also have chirality and a pressure gradient. And there’s, probably 18 different things that I could preble off that are very defining and important characteristics if you’re going to quantify a waveform.
And so what’s really going on with changing the quantum behavior of something is you manipulate some of those effects and then they cascade up from a waveform to become a particle. So after I finish blathering on about waveforms, most of which I think people probably glossed over on, like you were saying , I took the crab meat out and then I derma rolled his other arm and put the crab juice in and nothing happened.
And that was perplexing to people, but it was in real time. And everyone in the audience walked up to look at his arms. Because it was demonstrable, you could see that something was different. In one segment, same can, same person. One arm is having a reaction, one arm is not having a reaction, and the only difference was three minutes inside a quantum block.
It’s because if you think of us as a waveform, an aggregated waveform, then we’re not really primarily molecular interactions. We’re wave form dynamics. And so when you change the waveform, what you’re looking for is constructive or destructive interference. Which actually, any musician or anyone who’s ever heard somebody tuning a guitar has.
Around something when it’s moving in and out of phase and you hear beats those are nodal interaction points. And what’s really going on there is as you tune it up, you get things moving in concert and that becomes a constructive interference where there’s not that dissonance that most people would find distasteful.
It’s a pleasant cordal sound where two tones are co-mingling. And so if in the case of the crab. He had some problem with that at a subtle level. So if you put it in a quant block and you negate that detrimental effect where you have destructive interference, the outcropping of which is a histamine reaction, then you suddenly negate that.
Now from a molecular standpoint, the crab was the crab. It didn’t change, but from a subtle standpoint it was different. So if I looked at that in terms of spectroscopic analysis, what I can definitively say as a scientist is, yes, the mass spec is the exact same. I will tell you that the molecules are the same, the box is blue, but the contents of the box are obviously different because in a matter of minutes it created a different result.
And every single time we’ll continue to create a different result. And so that’s not something that says these things are the same. It’s obviously something that says these things are exhibiting disparate qualities, right? They’re different. But from the standpoint that we’re at in science currently, The molecule is the same, but obviously something else is going on.
The vibration is different and we could say that maybe the electron clouds are orbiting in a different capacity. Maybe it’s fluctuating in a different capacity. Maybe the bond angles are changing. We don’t really know. That’s the problem is it’s getting to such a degree of fine tune granularity that it’s getting beyond the capacity that we currently have to look at things.
And I think it’s going to take a little while for the science to catch up with the experimental data that’s coming in. Which again, that’s actually what I love about it, is it’s not all stuff that’s just wrote where we can read the answer in a book and keep cruising. We really have to think and ponder and say, what’s happening?
This is not what I expected. Why is this the way this is?
[00:23:28] Dr Mike T Nelson: Could you partially explain part of that as a placebo effect, or were you using verbiage to not try to predispose a certain result? I haven’t watched it yet. I’ll try
[00:23:40] Ian Mitchell: to find a link to it. Yeah I suppose you could say it’s a placebo effect, placebo effect, it’s still a real effect though.
Yeah. It’s, it will, yeah. A placebo effect yields a tangible effect. not an effect. It’s an effect. So it’s, I’m not just causing the change, I’m actually changing the result in data, so it, yeah, it doesn’t really matter. Every time I do the experiment, I get the same outcome. That’s what we base things on , so it doesn’t, it, I don’t actually care what the causation is in that capacity.
What I care about is what does the experimental data say? Where does it take me? What does the outcropping of that data. and every single time it’s that something’s different now, to that end. And this brings up good point. I think I may actually redo this. If I did that with say, 10 or 20 people and I didn’t tell them what was happening, would the effect be different on their arm?
Think actually I’m going to do that. Thank you for that. That’s keen. Yeah. Or I think I’ll give you the experiment.
[00:24:40] Dr Mike T Nelson: Or if you wanna get crazy, could you do a nocebo effect? You’re doing this. I’m like, Hey, I’m gonna go put in this thing. I’m like, ah, I don’t think this experiment’s gonna work.
It fails all the time. And do you get a different result? I don’t know. These are things that like partially keep us up at night.
[00:24:55] Ian Mitchell: I think that’s actually, that’s the thing though. That’s it. These are the kinds of things that should keep anybody who’s, being an honest scientist up at night is, you know what? What impact am I having on my own experiment? What impact is the environment having? Is it true? Now? One of the things that’s interesting about that very question though is with the idea of a nocebo effect, how much of that is us changing our environment just by virtue of the observation or the thought constructs that we have?
If in fact they are all waveforms, then every waveform that propagates, whether it’s a subtle intention that you have that’s inherent to the person you are or whether it’s something you’re actively expressing, all of those things would be, qualities would have an impact on that interaction in that given environment.
Which, which makes it really difficult. Cause if, if everything is subjective, we’re hose in terms of the way we’ve been approaching science for quite a while. It’s it makes it much more difficult to get an objective. , bead, that, that’s what’s praised in science is oh, it’s completely objective.
It’s double-blind placebo controlled. If everything in is in fact subjective by definition in nature, it we’re running up the wrong hill. don’t know. I suppose time will prove it out. That’s one of the beauty parts of this is we’re learning as we go, and it’s not a steadfast construct, which I, I really appreciate.
I’d much rather be in a position where I’m the slow guy in the room and don’t really know exactly what the right answer is. If I wanted to know what the right answer was, I’d probably, teach kindergarten mathematics or something like that and be very happy. . I actually, I far prefer the other, where I really don’t know.
[00:26:41] Dr Mike T Nelson: you think sometimes that the scientific process is. Obviously it’s gonna be limited by time, money constructs, experiments. But do you think a lot of times it’s more limited by the questions that people ask? Some of the things I think about are we never ran that experiment because everybody knows blah, blah, blah.
And then you sometimes go back and look and you’re like, I don’t know. No one really ran an experiment on that. And sometimes they’ve run thousands of experiments, but sometimes I found stuff we just glossed over because it seems rather obvious. But that’s kinda the point of science that if we knew all the answers already, we wouldn’t be doing all these damn experiments
[00:27:20] Ian Mitchell: Yeah. Actually, I think there’s a lot of fundamental things that we take for granted that completely throw us off. One, one of my, one of my favorite cartoons of all. Is it’s a Farside cartoon and I cite it. Sometimes I’ll cite it during lectures because it really does embody a lot of what we do in science is there are these two sharks that are swimming and one is looking up at the other, and all these people are running up on the beach.
And one, one shark says to the other, dude, your dorsal fin is sticking up. How long do you think that’s been screwing things up for us? ? It’s the non-obvious effect that we dunno what we don’t know, right? It could be completely obvious, but we may be just entirely asking the wrong question.
And that’s very possible. But, I actually think that’s probably, to your point, very much happening. A lot of the time we’re probably just asking the wrong questions, but that’s the beauty part of it. I if you said a thousand years ago, ask somebody what do you think it’s gonna be like in a thousand years?
There’s no way they could have conceptualized the things that we’re doing now. It just wouldn’t be possible. You wouldn’t have the framework or the constructs to even begin to think about the things that we’re doing now, no, nobody’s gonna say you wouldn’t have even thought to ask the question, what’s the most popular app gonna be?
Yeah. What’s the biggest social network? The what, . It’s just the things that we consistently take for granted don’t even exist in a lot of cases, for quite a while. It’s, statistics like that I have four kids, so I look at things that are going to impact them in the future.
And you see a lot of statistics saying, 50% of the jobs that will exist in 15 years, don’t exist now. It’s wow. That’s the pace of change is really differentiating things in terms of where we are now versus where we’ll be in the future. , but we don’t know the questions to ask.
That’s a, it’s literally something that isn’t invented or hasn’t been discovered or is just outside of, the placement of where we really are. And that’s, it’s cool, but it’s also a bit tricky to deal with because it’s an unknown con quantity, how do you put a pen in that you don’t, that’s the, I think that’s the thing that’s intriguing about science is you have to be really agnostic about the outcome.
Because I was doing an experiment the other day. I was working on trying to use some quantum behaviors to negate the need for E D T A heparin, sodium citrate and things like that as coagulant agents. And so they in line
[00:29:42] Dr Mike T Nelson: like vessel tubes without, when you do blood collection and stuff you’re talking about.
[00:29:45] Ian Mitchell: Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. And so we, in, in the lab, I, set up this experiment. We were doing this thing, failed miserably, did not work. And that’s okay. The result of the data just said, I’m wrong. All right? Fair enough. I’m wrong. I’ll probably be wrong. Maybe 90 times out of a hundred.
That’s cool. If I can move the needle forward 10 times out of a hundred, great. I’m feeling really good about that. But I have to be agnostic about it. I can’t be so wrapped around the axle about I’m right. I’m right that that I occlude what I’m really seeing.
That’s, that’s why the, it’s not even just being agnostic. You have to be very brutally honest, I think in science to say okay, one, I don’t care where the data takes me. I’ll actually follow it. Two, I don’t care if I look like an utter buffoon. I’m going to run down this path and see where it goes.
And a lot of times I prob, I personally probably do look like a buffoon but there’s a lot of. Times when, you see something, and I’m sure you’ve done this too, where you’ll see something and go how does that work? And it sends you down an entirely different pathway where the thought process is completely different than it would’ve been.
Had you followed the normal course of events or had you had any ego attached to the idea of I just gave a lecture on this, so I’m not gonna say something that, is in opposition to that because I want to seem right. I can tell you matter of factly, I have seen so many.
Academicians that, like when somebody’s an academic, they teach a certain thing and they teach it for a long time and they get tenured they don’t wanna turn around and say, you know what? Turns out everything I’ve taught you for the past 30 years is absolute bs. We were completely wrong.
Because it’s a facing, it’s a, something that makes them have a check in their ego, it dings them in their own perception of self. You can’t do that. I think you have to be you know what, if I look like a complete moron, so be it.
I’ll look like a complete moron. And I it’s funny, my dad, when I was a kid, my dad gave me this book that was called Enhancing Your Genius. And it, it was peculiar because. The whole idea was, what you can do to take the qualities that you have and to push it forward. And one of the things was to go into, some place of work or business or social setting and make loud animal noises.
And I, I did I boxed into a Starbucks in Westlake in Austin, and God, did all these, and everyone was looking at me like, what is this jackass doing? . But the whole idea was to get past the idea of being attached to your ego and being worried about what other people thought about you. Because if you are going to truly be a genius, if you’re going to push the bounds, if you’re gonna really be outside of the box, well inside the box is safe and comfortable outside of the box.
People will call you names and make fun of you and think you’re a complete jackass sometimes. Okay. So what, You’re gonna break the egg making the omelet. That’s just the case. And it’s totally true because I remember when I was doing that, people do look at you and they obviously very much cast judgment on you.
Who’s the jackass making the animal noises? Why is that guy in a Barnes and Noble making very loud animal sounds, and it was like the Barnes and Noble attached to the Starbucks I went to almost every day by my house. And so it was a little you don’t, you know what, so it was actually socially like I, and I chose that place specifically because it was gonna create a little psychological pressure for me because I didn’t wanna do it, in a vacuum where I didn’t have anything to risk, I would most likely see some of these people again and they would most likely go, yeah, that’s the guy who makes animal noises
But you just, you I think if you’re going to be honest and you’re going to push the bounds and you’re going to do science, that’s what it takes is, just check your ego at the door. Follow the truth, follow where the data takes you, and brace yourself for impact.
Because more likely than not, if you’re doing your job at that, you’ll catch some flack. I’m sure you, you probably had the same experience.
[00:33:45] Dr Mike T Nelson: Yeah. The thing I think of is years ago I did a presentation for darpa, so the Defensive Dance Resource Project Agency. So for people listening, like they literally discovered, technology that was the cell phone, the early arpanet, the became the internet.
So a lot of the military technology kind of filters down through everything else. And the two things I walked away from that remembering was one, I was by far the dumbest person in the room. No, no questions asked. These people were. Not only crazy smart, but like the questions they were asking, like every time I was like, oh, that’s such a good question.
I didn’t think of that one at all. You know what I mean? They weren’t, everyone was super nice and obviously you have to be vetted to get there and everything else, but just the level of thinking and questioning that they had and how open they were to, really crazy stuff. Cuz the guy who did the first lecture, he is like, all right, we don’t want any of this typical test this, then do this, like whack-a-mole, nutrition physiology.
He is we’re trying to solve stuff that’s 5, 10, 15 years away, and I was like, oh, okay. And then during the lunch break I was asking one guy, I said, Hey man so if you do get a contract from darpa, like how do you, like how do you get your contract canceled? What’s the list of stuff like, you definitely don’t wanna do this, to screw up.
And he is you wanna make sure to show ’em all your failures. I’m like, wait a minute, did they wanna see all of your failures? He’s yep, they’ll can your ass if you don’t show ’em enough failure. And I’m like, wait a minute, you didn’t get fired for not showing enough failure? He’s yeah, because he is they know the problems you’ve been funded to solve are not easy problems.
You’re not gonna hit it on the first time. But if you can go back to ’em and say, we ran this experiment. Here’s what we found. It wasn’t our result, but because of this, we’re gonna run this experiment and then this one and then this one, and show ’em this series as the thought progression. I was like, oh, interesting.
He’s oh yeah, they’ll give you enough money. And then that’s money’s never an issue. He’s but if you don’t show them that you’re running experiments to them, they’re like, they’re just wasting their time because you’ll never think through it in your head. And even if you did, the first question is, where’s your experimental data?
We wanna see what you actually found. So I thought that was like super fascinating. I was like, oh, that’s so cool. .
[00:35:56] Ian Mitchell: Yeah. Actually, it’s funny, I was, yesterday I was meeting with Dr. Amy Cruz who was, she was a program director for cognitive neuroscience at darpa. Oh, wow. And Ooh, yeah. . Yeah. We’re she’s actually taking over a company called Satori Neuro, and I’m on the advisory board for it.
So we spent yesterday brainstorming and going through things about, cognitive neuroscience and what we’re doing and what we’re going to do. What position to get in the market and how we can help people and, what sort of drugs and psychedelics and supplements and sorts of things we can do and hardware we could position and come up with.
And she’s great because, she was at DARPA for a long time and as the program director there, same sort of thing. She asks a lot of really great questions. Very smart woman. Very keen and super hilarious too. Actually. That’s one of the things I really enjoyed about Amy is , she’s got a very good sense of humor.
But I can see that because when you are trying to solve different sorts of problems, you’re gonna fail. That’s, it’s it’s kinda like baseball, right? If you hit, 300, you’re gonna be in the hall. Yeah. And that means you’ve failed seven out of 10 times . And that’s, and those guys check statistics, right?
So it means you’re great if you’re only failing seven out of 10 times. And it, which is funny, if you think about it I think the academic framework that we always force kids to go through is ridiculous because, everything is so geared towards making an A, right? You want to perform really well, that’s great, but at what point do you want to fail, right?
Like, where do you push yourself to your limits and fail? If you look at athletics, that’s entirely different, right? You want people to push themselves to the very edge of the envelope. It’s not that they’re winning, at everything. They literally, you’re going to failure, right? You don’t work to a comfortable norm where you’re going to succeed with every rep you’re trying to get to the point where you cap yourself out.
That’s why we grow and evolve and become stronger. and it’s just funny that we isolate the athletic component and the physicality so much from how we approach the psychology, and the mentality. I think if those two things were a little closer we might be making strides a lot more rapidly than we are, but the whole system isn’t really structured in a way that’s conducive towards pushing the species forward in a kind of evolutionarily advancing ourselves.
It’s not to get ex esoteric about it, but things are really geared towards the incumbent people, or companies that have the resources holding on and locking constructs in for a period of time so that they can better themselves typically in a financial sense as opposed to looking at it as a collective and.
Is this the best thing for humanity as a whole? I think if people pulled back a little bit and assessed things from the framework even for a little while of is this going to be the best thing for my grandkids or for my grandkids? Grandkids? Think about the way that we approach construction or the way that we approach transportation or energy production.
We would obviously be doing things in an entirely different fashion than we are now. We’re not, we’re looking for short-term benefit and a quick yield. The whole way construction is structured. In terms of real estate transactions, people are looking for, how much profit am I gonna get over that period of time?
Home is gonna sell in seven years, how much can I put in it versus how much can I get back? As opposed to saying, let’s look at the lifecycle costs. This structure is gonna wear out 30 years. The structure’s gonna last a hundred years. If we put X amount of dollars into it, we can transfer it to our, to, the, our heirs and the next two generations.
It’s just a different way of processing things that would probably have much better results. I was talking to my dad and he’s a really brilliant man and I was asking him about transportation and space travel and different things that I was pondering at the time. And, I was coming up with some different propulsion systems that were really quite keen and he said, this is great ru but do you really think we need humanity to get off of the planet?
Is it really something we want? And I started to think about it. I thought Actually, that’s a viable question. We’re not being really judicious stewards of our own planet. Maybe getting us out to another planet isn’t the best move. Definitively, it does guarantee our survival because they’re, any sort of number of cataclysmic events that could wipe out humanity as a whole in its totality very quickly just poop over, giant, death by giant meteor, death by super volcano.
There’s all sorts of stuff, but not trying to be the harbinger of doing this, it’s taken, sorry, it’s taken a very dark turn. But if you look at it, we really have acted more in a viral capacity than we have in the capacity of stewardship of the planet that’s been handed to us.
And you. I don’t know maybe we don’t deserve to be bopping about the the solar system or the galaxy yet. Maybe to a great extent though, maybe that’s a self-limiting function because we’re obviously not there yet. Nobody’s doing interstellar travel, of which we’re aware. So if we worked collectively for the benefit of all of the rest of humanity, maybe somebody would help us along with that.
Maybe we would get farther, I think in terms of how often have you bumped into kids that are in underprivileged environments and just had the thought, God, that’s, that’s a really brilliant kid. Some kid will ask a question and you think that’s a real shame.
You didn’t grow up in, Cambridge. Like you’d be , oh yeah. You’d, I see that a lot. You go out and you do some outreach or talk to some people, and I, a lot of times I do, I walk away and go, God, Those guys were really smart, but they’re gonna be boxed out from resources that other people have access to and hence you’ll probably never hear from them.
They’ll spend the majority of their lives just trying to make ends meet and doing the same doldrum run that most of us do all the time. Time to make the donuts kinda a thing. And it’s, I dunno, maybe it is a self-limiting function. I dunno. Do you
[00:41:45] Dr Mike T Nelson: think part of that may be related to cognition that humans tend to be very individual survival orientated and therefore their time spann is thinking about most of their life?
Maybe as I’m just getting older, I tend to think of things in terms of my lifetime, not one or two lifetimes after me. Not that I’m trying to not think about it. It just seems like that appears to be my own
[00:42:13] Ian Mitchell: default for some reason. Yeah, I think we’re, I think we’re taught to be very self-focused. I don’t know that, societies as a whole can’t function if you’re entirely self-focused.
But the individual members of them have to be, to a certain extent. The whole structure that we have is, it’s a primate structure, right? It’s hierarchical and there are, a lots of Indians, very few chiefs kind of a thing, and that’s I don’t know that I wonder sometimes if that’s very much biologically driven, but I also hope that maybe we can bypass that.
I do actually think that as a species, we. Survival instincts, the eyes are in the front of our head, which means that we have to have evolved with certain criteria. We have to be predators in a sense, which means that we have to go out and, provide for ourselves by virtue of taking or, capturing or utilizing or killing or doing something else with other things.
I don’t know. I guess I just hope, and maybe this is me just, waxing poetic and wishing better for everybody else. But just think that if we could be a little more broad in our approach maybe we’d be more beneficial to everybody else. I think the people that you love the most in the world, there’s not much you wouldn’t do for them.
I think if you extrapolate that and treated everyone with the same approach, the world would be a really remarkably cool place. If you viewed everybody as somebody you love, Holy cow. Think about how that would be, if everybody that you came into contact with treated you like, you were the person that they love the most in the world we would be functioning with an entirely different paradigm.
I’m I guess actually I should probably lead by example and do that. Of course. It’s, I may need to change my attire and start dressing like Willy Wonka. Cause I I’m sure I’ll be radically and rapidly ostracized for doing that though.
[00:44:05] Dr Mike T Nelson: You had mentioned cognition, even the use of psychedelics of, I mean I did a couple ayahuasca ceremonies like two, three years ago now.
One actually, one was year ago, then was two years ago. And it was the oddest experience to be lying there in the middle of the ceremony and hearing people throwing up, screaming, crying, like stuff that you would normally hear. And think, oh my God, what’s happening to that person. But you knew the set and setting, you knew that they were safe.
Everybody opted into it. Nobody forced them into it. And also, I remember lying there thinking, I’m like, ah, that’s so good. Like you do that. Like you’re, I was like so proud of everyone who was there, who opted in to do something very difficult, especially not knowing how it would be. And when I was done, it was a very interesting sense of empathy and more caring for other people.
Maybe part of that is obviously because of the D M T, obviously the drugs themselves, but I think also the environment of people opting in to do something that was difficult. That I think also gave me, I don’t wanna say more faith in humanity, but it also made me realize that oh yeah, there’s still a lot of people out there who are not just in it for themselves.
They are trying to be better humans, but they’re trying to be better humans so they can serve other people in
[00:45:25] Ian Mitchell: different capacities too. I think that’s actually very true there. There are people out there. I luckily, I bump into people every day that have really, positive beliefs towards other people.
And they do wanna help people. I was literally just meeting with the c e o of higher dose an hour ago and she, Lauren really is driven to help people. It was compelling actually. It was it was really great. It is like you said, it it makes you have a sort of reverence in a hope about humanity where you’re like, ah, that’s awesome.
Somebody wants to make things better. Sweet. But it’s not every day that I see that like you. Was, in a normal setting. It wasn’t some sort of, altered state. But I think around altered states like that, you do see a dissolution of ego a lot of times. Yeah. And I’ve done combo ceremonies.
I, I haven’t actually done ayahuasca ceremony, but I’ve done a lot of combo ceremonies and those, it’s the same thing, like people are very physically uncomfortable and combo’s not fun. No it’s pretty harsh. And you can see them releasing a lot of things both physically and psychologically. And it’s it’s refreshing though, but everyone, when they’re done, you look around and every time I’ve done it, and I’ve done it quite a few times, every time I’ve done it, there is also this a sree decor where people have come together and you feel closer to those people because you’ve shared something that’s. Intimate in a sense, and it’s not it doesn’t even have to be overt. It’s not like you’re telling them your deepest, darkest secrets, but it’s very much you’ve been exposed and open and you are in a compromised position so that, you’re definitely weaker
Cause you’re generally speaking, doubled over, throwing up, feeling a tremendous amount of pain. Flo sweating, it’s you are in a compromised position biologically and a lot of times emotionally, I’ve seen tons of people crying and, oh yeah, same thing. It’s, it really does it, it brings all those things out, but at the end of it, even if no one said a word, everyone does have this kind of, from my perspective, feeling of being closer to me I always feel more connected to, whatever group that I’ve done that with.
I actually did that with most everybody at my company. Because it’s, I think those things are beneficial, right? If you’re gonna spend a lot of time working with people in a close environment, in my case, I probably spend more time around the guys that I work with and the guys in the lab than I do with my kids.
And that’s, I’m sure my kids probably would not wanna spend 12 hours a day with me anyway. It’s at least not the teenagers. They definitely would wanna spend more than 12 hours a day with me. It’s, you wanna have those relationships where things do feel, close and loving and you’re compelled to take care of people and help people.
And those situations put you in that space, or at least for me, they do. I think a lot of that, like you said, could be because you are having these, D M T releases and things like that, but, I don’t know that it really matters what the impetus for it is at the end of the day, the fact that you feel that way and you feel more kind and loving towards another creature, it’s worth its weight in gold.
Especially, like I said, with people that you plan to spend a lot of time with and the people you work with. I don’t think you’re gonna see a lot of Wall Street firms having ayahuasca retreats and doing things together, . But it, it might be a very different world if they did.
[00:48:46] Dr Mike T Nelson: Yeah. Did you, I’ve done like combo twice and this happened to some other people in our group too, that I remember the first time I didn’t know what to expect. So we did combo in the morning, we did the ayahuasca, the D M T that evening, so we had this beautiful time in Costa Rica in between, and I knew about it ahead of time, so I didn’t want any outside influence, didn’t bring my phone, anything else.
And I brought my little journal and I’m like, ah, I’m just gonna, write down all these thoughts. I’ll have so much time relaxing out in the jungle. I didn’t write a single thing down for 10 hours. It was so weird. And then the next time I did it, the following year, the same thing happened. It didn’t feel like my brain was dulled.
I didn’t feel dulled in any capacity. It just felt like super calm and it was like normal, just did not have many thoughts. And it felt okay. I don’t know if you had a similar experience or if it was just me and I just thought that was just really bizarre, but
[00:49:37] Ian Mitchell: in a good way. I may not be probably the best person to ask for that or that question.
Because I’ve spent, about 30 years being a diehard meditator. Yeah, that it definitely changes how your brain functions, what you’re doing, how you’re processing for and personally I think that’s actually a good thing. I am very pleased with. The absence of noise in my brain.
I, I think it’s actually conducive to a lot of the things I do that my brain is, for all intents and purposes, very quiet comparatively. It’s a, it’s more of a solid state function than a dynamic function, oops. Excuse me. What type of meditation do you do?
oh, I think you, you
[00:50:16] Dr Mike T Nelson: hit the mute button there, so unmute.
[00:50:19] Ian Mitchell: Oh, there we go. Sorry, I flipped off. Worries. Screen second worries. Worries. Nowadays it’s a, a varied version of like transcendental meditation, and I’ve studied, I’ve done a ton of comparative religion in different theology and all sorts of stuff, kinda in the process of trying to figure out what I was trying to figure out at that time.
And most religions seem to point back in the same direction. Basically sit down, be quiet, focus, open up, breathe, and things will happen. And, and that was actually my experience is, things started to happen. I remember trying to do that sort of stuff 30 years ago before I really knew what I was doing and had any instruction in it.
And I just, I was very frustrated because I just felt like I was sitting down with my eyes closed and it was someone annoying, . But, then I got, a mantra. And the reason I like the idea of mantra meditation is because that repetitive process of using a sound that you don’t necessarily ascribe some sort of cognitive bias to it’s a word that I’m familiar with.
Will you attach something to that? . So if it’s just a sound or a vibration or a syllable, Have no description of any meaning to, it’s much easier to just let that kind of go and propagate. And then what happens is your mind at some point just disappears and then it’ll come back and you’ll find yourself thinking about something and you try not to be very frustrated by that.
Which early on, this is why I think most people probably stop meditating, is they get annoyed by the fact they’re like, I’m doing it wrong. Oh yeah. I’m having thoughts.
[00:51:46] Dr Mike T Nelson: I still have those thoughts all the time. Meditating .
[00:51:49] Ian Mitchell: Yeah. And that’s the thing is, the reality is it’s like clouds on a sunny day, I, the clouds are gonna move by.
Just let ’em roll. Yeah. Kinda do your thing. Don’t worry about it. It’s more important that you do the process, because I think what happens is it’s that space between the thoughts where your consciousness dips out and you go into a place where you are not thinking anymore. And it, and if you’re doing it consistently what you actually start to find, or at least in my experience, and the experience of quite a lot of other people I know is.
At certain points your breathing stops, which is why I, I didn’t actually give a tremendous amount of credence to the idea of like solely doing breathwork Meditation is if you do it right, you stop breathing. And then your system reboots, if you really do it right, your heart stops.
Your brain wave stops, your breathing stops. You are effectively in stasis for periods of time, and then you reboot and come back up. And that’s really, if you can zero out an e g, you’re doing it right. That’s when your brain is actually in a state where it’s truly getting rest because you’re not having any evoked potentials express themselves, right?
And so you really are truly giving yourself a mental break. But that’s, those sorts of states, most people are probably not gonna arrive at that. for quite a while because it takes consistent practice. And it’s not like you have to be some special anything. It’s a state that’s accessible to everybody.
The only thing you really need to do is consistently do it, right? If you do that twice a day, every day consistently for a couple of decades, you’re going to have experiences, things will be different. You will shift into transcendental states. It’s pretty much a given, so mine is a variation of that.
I have a specific mantra and I was, given, said mantra by, the typical person wearing, classical, traditional Indian garb and that sort of stuff. And, but, don’t know what those syllables mean. That’s great. Fine. Don’t have to ascribe anything to it.
And I just sit down in a comfortable chair. I don’t have to sit in a lotus position. I it’s just, I think really it’s more the. the idea of doing it consistently and for any of the, like the scientists and, that are listening to this, if you just objectively forget about all of the mysticism and the sort of, the ritual aspects of it, and take the anthropology component out and don’t look at the culture, don’t look at the, the garb or anything like that.
If you just look at the studies and the data of what happens when people consistently put themselves in those states, it’s remarkable. , I don’t know why it’s not taught to little kids in schools everywhere in the world because God bless it. It the things that happen. Neurally or transformative, your neuroplasticity goes up the amount of your, cerebral cortex that you’re actually engaging and utilizing goes up.
People who meditate consistently, their IQ works in, in correlation with their age increasing, your IQ goes up as opposed to damn near everybody else where it’s an in inverse correlation. The older you get, the slower you get. Yeah. And, why wouldn’t everybody do that? It’s, it is, it’s actually, it’s probably the most remarkable thing that I’ve ever been exposed to and thank God I was actually exposed to it.
Cause it was profound for me. And I’m sure, honestly, it’d probably be profound for anybody. I just think most people don’t do it. And you also, you have to overcome the distractions of. Generally when you need it the most is when you want to do it. The least , when you’re like totally stressed out about something and you’re like, ah, I’m running late.
I’ve gotta do this thing. It actually, it reminds me of are you familiar with Stephen Covey’s book, the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People? Yep. The Seventh Habit, the sharpening the Saw kind of analogy over I can’t take time to do that. I’m chopping the tree down. I like, that’s exactly it.
Like when you need to stop, put a pin in it, pull back and do things rest. Like that’s actually, it’s that respite that really does things. We were discussing this yesterday in terms of, cognitive behaviors that are actually very beneficial. It’s when you take that diffuse focus and you take the walk and you’re not just constantly doing it. That’s actually. When things really transpire that magical, that’s when a lot of people get that inspiration, that stroke of insider genius. It’s when you’re not trying to hammer it down as much as you can. It’s when you actually let your mind breathe and become expansive and let your subconscious engage and take all of the data that you’ve amassed, consciously process it, come up with some aggregate resultant thing, and then push it up to your conscious mind.
Those are the strokes of th those truly are those eureka moments. And I would hope that everybody would just do that, but it’s not something that we culturally push, and it’s not something that’s taught in schools. I taught all of my kids to meditate, and I think of the four two still consistently do it.
One somewhat consistently, and one very consistently. And, I don’t know that he talks about it a lot, but the kid’s brilliant. and he just got a full ride scholarship to school and he’s just, it was a couple years ahead in mathematics. And not saying that, that’s the only reason, but it definitively helps, just the, giving your brain a bit of respite.
If you thought about it across any other field of endeavor, like if you trained as an athlete seven days a week, six hours a day, you’d be horrible, right? , your muscles have to have some sort of time when they can recover. If you never gave them a point to recover, what would you expect? Mentally I think we’re the same, but we don’t do that.
We just expect that, ah, that thing can just keep going all the time. We’re just gonna push it and keep squeezing it harder and harder. And that’s preposterous, right? You’ve gotta give it the tools that it needs. Actually one of the things is, oxygen, we live in an environment where, The oxygen in our atmosphere is literally 10% lower than it was when our bodies evolved to be what they are now.
We’re built, we’re creatures that are built to consume 21% oxygen. There’s 19% in the air right now. We’re running in a 10% deficit. That’s not so good. And it’s actually that’s, I’ve been sucking down this stuff that we make in my lab and we all drink it.
It’s we call it Wizard water , but it’s hyper oxygenated water. So you drink this and your pulse ox goes to a hundred or Really, or your pulse. Yeah. Or your pulse goes down. It’s one of the two things, what, your body’s always looking for some sort of homeostatic balance, so whatever is the most effective.
Yeah, exactly. So it’s either it decreases the load and that expresses as a reduced heart rate, or it decreases the load and it expresses, as, your VO two max and your pulse ox going up. , but it makes a difference, right? Your brain is on fire and you can just keep cruising. But again, I’m compensating for a deficiency in the environment that’s inherent every time you walk outside, every time you walk inside the environment is this, the atmosphere is a collective thing.
The air we’re breathing here is no different than the air that’s being taken in China right now. It’s all 10% lower than it should be for human physiology. And actually it’s funny. A lot of the things that I’ve been working on lately focus around that, like compensating for deficits and oxygenation, compensating for overages in deuterium.
Like we’re all exposed to way the hell, too much deuterium in our environment right now. And that those are things. Our bodies were built around the concept of having a consistent level of deuterium at about, 130 ish parts per million. Now it’s upwards of 150 in our environment.
That instantly means you’ve got a decrease in mitochondrial potential, so your metabolic flexibility goes down. It’s just, and that’s, those are the things that are the, as my dad used to always say, the cosmic triggers, the things that have been pulled at some point that’s acting on us that we are unaware of and that we don’t even know to compensate for.
And so a lot of those things, that’s where I’ve been focusing is like, what can I do to help that is going to really benefit things and move the needle that people may or may not even be thinking about. Like deterioration depleted water’s great, but it’s stupidly expensive.
Myself and one other chemical engineer that I’m working with, we came up with actually we came up with three different ways to make deuterium depleted water that would be cheap enough so that we could, sell it at a price that would be the equivalent price of just normal water.
And, cause I always tell people when I hear people say, oh, I’ve got cancer, the first thing I tell ’em is get a ketogenic diet. Second thing I tell ’em is, drink deterioration depleted water. Cause there are a litany of studies about the beneficial effects of both, but I always feel guilty telling ’em the second one, like keto diet, that’s easy.
Anybody can adapt to it because it’s relatively cheap and commonplace de deter depleted water is stupidly expensive because the process to make it, they use a like apelt Italian tower cooling method kinda a thing. It’s really expensive. And if you’re gonna drink just deum depleted water for a month, you’re gonna spend a couple hundred bucks, which is outlandish in my opinion.
So that was something that needed to be fixed, so we fixed it and so I’ll start getting that out and it’s just, it’s looking for those little spaces where we can kinda make a difference.
[01:00:50] Dr Mike T Nelson: And that leads me to, as we wrap up here, like the Wizard Science, which is your whole brand of supplements is where I first heard about you through my buddy Ben Polski, and I remember listening to the podcast Oh, right on with Ben.
And he’s a good buddy. Love Ben. He’s so awesome. And I texted him and I said, Hey Ben, I just listened to your podcast with this Ian guy. I’m like, I don’t know man. This guy’s either a whackadoo or a genius, and I’m like, I think he’s a genius. And so Ben rights back, he goes, oh yeah, that guy’s a legit genius.
I was like, oh, okay.
[01:01:28] Ian Mitchell: good on the right side of the coin toss as tested and verified numerically. Yeah. . Yeah. But again, honestly if you’re gonna, hold up and I wouldn’t do that about myself, but if you are gonna end up in that category, yeah, a lot of times you are, you’re gonna seem like a total whackadoo because the things that you’re gonna be looking at are probably different than what the average person is going to be looking at.
And that as a term, that’s something that’s used to. by definition something that is outside of the normal parameters, right? Like it means, if there are 50 black, black suits, there’s one in bright white, haha. Yeah. , may not make you popular . Yeah. Because,
[01:02:10] Dr Mike T Nelson: Humans are drawn to the extremes and what’s not in the norm.
So in that example the first thing you’re gonna notice is the one that doesn’t match everything else. Yeah. That’s like what your brain is like literally drawn to for better or worse.
[01:02:23] Ian Mitchell: Yeah, that’s true. Yeah. That’s why I generally walk around humming the Sesame Street. One of these things is not just precede in my environment, the concept that, people should be okay with the fact that I’m very different
Yeah I actually, Ben Polski is great. I love the way he approaches fitness and I very much. He’s really insightful and the things that he does to break things down in terms of purveying the idea of everybody can do this thing, here’s how you do it. I it’s insightful.
I think he makes a big difference and hits a big, fat wide swath of the audience too, which is good. I think all of us in the health and wellness space, we’re trying to do that. It’s kinda like doctors, I think most doctors I know are very well intended at.
But they’re not up on the latest research because they can’t be, they don’t have the time they’re spending their days, being like the auto mechanics of the biological world, ah, you need a spin balance here, take this . That’s kinda, it’s, that’s just the way it is.
I like, I actually, I was in a really horrific motorcycle wreck like 16 weeks ago. Oh wow. And are you, looks like you’re doing OK now. Oh yeah, no, I’m fine. I, at the nine week mark, I was up, got my, bill of good health from the orthopedic surgeon. My, my femur actually ended up inside my tibia. Oh, so the femoral con Yeah, the femoral condo actually punched into the tibaldi.
So for those of you who aren’t in the medical space Yeah. Upper leg bone, the biggest one punches through lower leg bone and it punched down an inch and it split it six inches down. So it was kinda like a log splitter for my leg and I face planted it 65 miles an hour. Oh geez. It was Yeah, less than thrilling.
But when the surgeon came in, the orthopedic surgeon came in and I was, in the bed and he said this is a horrible break. We’re gonna have to, put you back together with pens and plates and screws and put you under general anesthesia and then hit your bones with bone filler and reset everything.
And his description, he said afterwards you’ll be able to see the metal plates on the outside and all this stuff. And I said, God bless, this is barbaric. And I said, I don’t think so. So I, I called my staff and said, Hey, go buy a hospital bed. Bring it to the lab.
and I had them, come pick me up. And I got discharged and they came and I couldn’t move. So they came and they took me off the gurney on a bedsheet, literally like a wounded dolphin . And slid me into the back of a truck, drove me to my laboratory, and then put me on a hospital bed.
And then I started doing, pulse, electromagnetic field work, lasers, stem cells red light panels, hyper oxygenated water. Cause I couldn’t get in a hyperbaric chamber doing all these different modalities. And I was up, I think 11 days later I was up and about. I actually, I was doing a, I was doing a meeting in the lab and I was on with Todd, one of the fellas that I work with.
And he was like, what are you doing up? How are you up? And it was just because, I’m practicing what I preach, right? This is the latest and greatest stuff that we have access to. There’s really, it’s reprehensible that people are taking as long as they are in orthopedics to repair a bone, right?
There’s no reason for that. If you use pulse electromagnetic fields, they repair very rapidly, right? You can repair a really bad fracture in under two weeks, pretty much across the board. Like you, you see very definitive radiographic shifts in a very brief period of time. I think that’s because bone is also
[01:05:36] Dr Mike T Nelson: mainly peasy electric, correct?
[01:05:38] Ian Mitchell: Yeah, exactly. And so that’s his mechanism. Yeah. So you can actually stimulate it multiple ways, right? You can do it with sonic sorts of things. So so as long as you’re getting, because it’s PIO electric, you can get things that are vibratory, right? So you can sonicate it or not sonicate in a traditional laboratory sense, but you can move it with lu vibration.
So you can use sound you can do it electrically or you can do it electromagnetic. and all of those modalities, trigger a, trigger, a healing response where you get these, osteoblastic formations and things are starting to pump out and you’re getting more trabecula and everything’s starting to men.
And that’s, it’s just a shame that people aren’t exposed to that. When I went back to the orthopedic surgeon, he literally, after one week, I had radiographic healing showing new bone. And I actually had to argue to be able to get an X-ray because he said no, , nothing’s gonna show up for three weeks.
That doesn’t happen. And he actually, after I got the X-rays, he came back with his iPad and he said, do you see that? That’s a new bone? And was perplexed, but it’s, the tech is out there. It’s, it’s not some big super secret black box thing. Everybody that’s in the space, for electromagnetic field work, knows that’s the case, right?
It’s just the guys who are on the front lines trying to do the work of healing the masses they don’t have the time to go back and look at what the latest and greatest thing is. And it’s also, it’s not something that’s monetarily viable, I think because y the companies that are doing that aren’t these huge giant conglomerate pharma international companies.
It’s not big pharma. Yeah. I don’t know about you. I’ve seen a lot of big pharma stuff I haven’t ever seen big magnet. So those guys, they’re just trying to get in for big magnet . And it’s because, it’s not something that they’re gonna sell as a consumable over and over, but it’s very effective.
The same thing with, stem cells. That’s an untapped feel, and I think it would be incredibly beneficial for so many people across so many different so many different ailments that, you can be maligned with. I was talking to a friend of mine who’s, one of the top stem cell guys in the country and this was a couple years ago when the F D A had just passed ruling that said, if you expand the culture to over 25,000 stem cells there’s a limit on it, then it’s gonna be, yeah, it’s gonna be classed as drug and the doctors will get, paying because it’s an unlicensed drug.
And I said, Matt, why in the world would they do that? It’s so beneficial. And he said, yeah, that’s exactly why. , because, big pharma has pushed them into a corner and said, this is healing people. We don’t want that. And it sounds tinfoil, haddish, but that really is the reality is those things are all driven by economics.
They’re not driven. By what is going to heal people the most effectively? How can we get the populace and the best possible health that doesn’t generally enter into the equation? It’s really, what can put the most money into corporate profits and return shareholder equity, , that’s how things are governed or governed.
And, for better or worse, I guess that’s just where we’re at. Yeah, no, that, that’s fascinating.
[01:08:38] Dr Mike T Nelson: And I did some, I’ve met with the guys who do pulse centers before and I’ve done some of the, I’ve got a EM unit under my bed that a guy sent me, God, probably 12 years ago from the Earth Pulse. And he was quite the interesting character.
And I’m just, at first I’m just like, I don’t know. This isn’t gonna do anything. And it was interesting after I used it for probably 90 days, like my max strength didn’t go up. But what was weird is that my cardiovascular stuff, I didn’t do hardly any cardiovascular training at that point. And normally it drops off after a few weeks.
Like it didn’t drop off at all. All my rep tests I did, all my cardiovascular tests I did stayed the same and some of ’em got even a little bit better. I was like, what? That’s weird. So it’s, again, back to the physics and all those areas, like you can explain what’s going on, but if you look at a lot of the research in that area, they’re just, there’s some for sure, but there isn’t as much as you would expect, to, to find in those areas.
[01:09:39] Ian Mitchell: Yeah, probably because economically it’s not something that’s
[01:09:42] Dr Mike T Nelson: right. Who’s gonna benefit? Who’s gonna pay
[01:09:44] Ian Mitchell: for it, right? Yeah. Because I’ve seen things like if you put somebody on, because I actually used a pulse center coil when I was rehabbing myself. And I, if you look at somebody who’s got say, microvascular coagulopathy, right?
Where the little peripheral vascular vasculature is clogged up and things are, clumping. We, you can eliminate those clotting factors damn near, instantly if you just put them on a pimp mat. And o open things up and really benefit it. The same thing with all quantum stuff. We very demonstrably showed that will take clotting factors and roll that back a bit.
And those things are great. But again, both myself and Phillip with Lila we’re really hell Ben on proving things and having the data and being able to put up the dataset and say, here look, it’s right there, double blinded, sham controlled. We did it. Because I think that’s important, but there’s not, again, there’s actually it’s a financial detriment for a smaller group.
But I applaud the fact that. Phillip puts the bill for that kind of stuff because for smaller companies it’s really difficult to do that, right? Yeah. I’m, I’m lucky because I have access to, lots of researchers that I know and that are personal friends and a lot of doctors that I work with and, we’ll help one another out to do studies and trials and assess things and say does this work, does this not work?
Case in point, the one that just failed with the eed, the E D T A and the Heparin and the sodium citrate, that was because I’m able to, go to a clinic and have a doctor that I know and trust actually run these experiments and test them. If I were doing, contract research organization stuff and going out and paying a quarter of a million bucks to have this whole host of experimentation done, I wouldn’t be able to do that.
Luckily, friends that I trust that will do the experiment in case in point, say, sorry, Bubba experiment failed. It was an abject failure, did not do a damn thing. But then they’ll go, eh, come back. We’ll try it again. And normally if you were hiring out a C R O to do that, you’d be spending a lot and it would take a lot of time.
And if it’s not financially viable, it’s just not gonna happen. Nobody’s gonna pay for that research. I actually, one of the things in academia that I’ve seen a lot of times is there was a research group in it was a joint research team between Japan and Germany maybe seven or eight years ago that was working on a nanoparticle thing.
Like the followings like I, I work with a lot. And they were doing brilliant research, like it was fan fricking fantastic. And they were right on the crux of cracking the code on some on oncology work that would’ve been revolutionary. , but then the research just went cold. And it went cold because, somebody moved on, they lost the grant funding and the postdoc split and everything shut down.
And it was just, it was sad. But without the, without a N I H grant or something like that behind it, the guys in the lab don’t have the money. They’re not gonna pay for it out of pocket. And so academically that stuff just goes away. And that quite frequently. Things ramp up and they’re moving in a really great pattern.
They’re gonna do something that’s revolutionary. Grant funding dries up, it’s done. And nobody picks up the ball and runs with it of their own accord. And it’s just, again, if you wanna understand it, sadly, follow the money. And that applies to, the health and wellness space. It applies to academia.
It’s a societal thing. I think it just across the entire civilization really. That’s what drives a lot of this. . I wish it weren’t exactly that way, but that’s the system we’re playing in. Yeah. And especially
[01:13:11] Dr Mike T Nelson: in the supplement world a buddy of mine ran a supple, my company for many years, he doesn’t have it anymore, but he paid $230,000 to do pretty legit study.
Double blind, all the nice things, had a big university do it, had people helping with the data, all the, all the good stuff. And eh, it was almost statistically significant, right? , he went back to him and they’re like, Hey man, give us another a hundred grand. We can add more people.
Do it, we can expand it. It may turn out to be, positive. So he, published the data and everything like that and realized that nah, nobody really cared. Like none of the customers were really asking to see any data. He did it because he is I believe this is the right thing.
I wanna know if our product actually works or not. And then after years after he ended up selling the company, he’s just , sadly, he’s I would’ve made a lot more sales if I put that money into marketing instead of putting it into research. And the reality is unfortunately, he’s true
That’s correct. No,
[01:14:07] Ian Mitchell: That’s entirely true. And I’m probably horrible about that. I’m sure my company would probably do far better if I pushed marketing and stuff like that. But, the Wizard Sciences thing, for me it’s a it’s a passion play in a sense because I’m making things that solve very specific problems and help people that I wasn’t able to find out there.
Like the neural RX that was designed to help people with Alzheimer’s. And so tell us about that, if people aren’t familiar with it. So it’s basically it’s a combination of a lipid in an nanoparticle bound together to form a thing called a lip wolverine. So you take a lipid, you bind it to this spherical form of carbon so that it can move through a cell membrane.
In and of itself, it’s hydrophilic. Or rather hydrophobic. So it’s not gonna move through the membrane when you bind it to a lipid because it’s lipophilic it will actually move through a cell membrane. And then when that happens there’s a swap at the surface in the membrane. It de localizes from the lipid and then finds its way because of a charge gradient differential to the surface of the mitochondria.
And it generally sticks in the mitochondrial membrane on the surface where it begins to act as an oxidative stress buffer. So it knocks out the oxidative stress load inside the cell. And then the net effect of that is you get a somewhere between, we tested on the low end, 18% on the high end, 58.3% of a boost in the ATP output.
Oh, that’s huge. Yeah. Enormous. That’s like crazy huge . It’s funny on the note of that, you do that the neural has all of these components that go in and bring it up to the brain and use the liver de fractionated to beta hydroxybutyrate so the keto bodies can move to the brain.
And then there’s a deposition around the neurons and it triggers these interesting responses where it outpaces BDNF and NGF one. Brain derive neu trophic factor in neural growth factor one. So it pumps up the rate of new neurogenesis and, because you always have this constant hippocampal neurogenesis going on.
But it, it accelerates the rate of that. And so for people who have cognitive deficits, you’ll want that, you want new neurons to replace the ones that are dinged up. And but unfortunately, your body goes through this process called synaptic pruning, where it generally, even though you’re pumping out new neurons at a faster rate, , they’re very resource consumptive.
Your brain accounts for 3% of your body mass, maybe two and a half to 3%, but it accounts for 20 to 25% of your oxygen consumption. So it’s in terms of resources, there’s a huge resource allocation for things neurono only. So you your body goes up too much, sorry, kill ’em. Unless you are at a very large cognitive deficit and it’s clinging onto them hold on for dear life.
Or you’re putting them under cognitive load trying to learn some very different new thing, in which case it actually cements the neurons in place and you get the net benefit of getting to use them over time, as you get a higher and higher density and more of them in terms of just an aggregate number.
But, so those things pump up your neurons. But I have the same thing happening with the Olympic formula that we make, but it gets it through most of your skeletal muscle. And so there are all these CrossFit athletes that are using it now, like the top guys in the world because they started using it when they saw the output numbers, cuz those guys meticulously track how much of a benefit they get.
They were putting, one guy called me and said, I literally put up numbers in terms of the weight that I’m able to move that I’ve not been able to do for seven years. Wow. And I ran faster than I’ve ever run. And this was one of the guy, in, in the CrossFit games and or one of the guys in the CrossFit games and, It’s interesting because when you look at those kind of jumps in attp, it’s a huge number.
Most people don’t really care. Like I’ll say, oh, 58.3% boost in ATP output at the high end. Yeah. That’s like unheard of . Yeah. But the now here’s the interesting thing. That’s just because I’m blocking system loss. What I did with the NeuroRx for people with Alzheimer’s and cognitive deficits was I figured, okay, if I can block systemic loss and get that much of a jump, what happens if I look at all of the complexes of the e tc, the electron transport chain and try and bump up the individual components, right? So I put coq 10 in accelerate one, put N A D precursors in and bump that up. So when you get those N A D precursors at the same time that you’re blocking system loss and you’re adding system gain, then you end up with an even more robust energetic profile.
All sorts of things happen. And then I put in proteolytic enzymes to, to go in and start stripping out tau proteins and beta amyloid plaques and break it down so that the glymphatic system can actually up-regulate and use interstitial fluid and cerebral spinal fluid to wash that and purge it. And as those things happen you take people who are in a negative feedback loop biologically, where the system is just getting worse and worse and every day you start breaking it down until you re that reach that tipping point where it becomes a positive feedback loop and it’s getting better and better and better.
And that’s happening in the case of the neural r It happens, with cognition in the brain and in the case of the Olympic, it’s happening throughout the rest of the body. The, those things are hugely beneficial. So for me that’s a, it’s a kind of a passion project cuz I wanna make sure. I’m doing those things to, to help and push things forward.
Olympic is Olympic cause I was making it for guys who were going out for the Olympics for pole vaulting. And so it was a bit of a joke to call it the Olympic. But it I would love to push that, and you’re probably right, I would probably be better off if I spent time in dollars doing marketing as opposed to, nerding out and doing research.
But, truth be told, that’s where I, obviously that’s really more my bag is going out and nerding out, doing research and failing a lot and trying to figure out cool, new stuff as opposed to, schlepping things and spending a bazillion dollars on Instagram to do that, or Facebook or whatever, I would like to think that growing it organically, just by word of mouth and seeing people. Benefit from it. The testimonials are crazy. People that have a lot of, and I don’t wanna overtly say the different things that it helps, but if you have cognitive deficits, it’s beneficial, and I I don’t wanna get lambasted by making medical claims or anything like that cause, you get shut down very quickly.
But I really would like, I, in my, dream of dreams, lots of people would be exposed to that and they would reap the benefits of that. Because I think if everybody felt stronger, better, had better, cognitive capacity, the world would be a much nicer place. Oh yeah, a hundred
[01:20:28] Dr Mike T Nelson: percent.
And I think the CrossFit athletes, you’ve done some work with Sam Dancer, I
[01:20:32] Ian Mitchell: believe. Correct? Yeah, I have, yeah.
[01:20:34] Dr Mike T Nelson: Super wonderful dude. Like just one of the nicest big teddy bear people you’ll ever meet in your life, .
[01:20:39] Ian Mitchell: That’s absolutely true. Yeah. And Sam, actually he was one of the bells cuz a bunch of them have done this.
Sam was one of the fellows that called me to ask, his first question was, is this legal ? ? Which is a good question to ask . It’s a very good question. Yeah. And he did the research too, and despite my saying yes, it’s not on the water USADA or any of that kind of stuff he, did a deep dive on it to make sure it was all kosher and then started using it and actually cycled back.
Or circled back rather and said here’s what’s happening. This is my data. This is what’s going on. Which, Remarkable. And it, but the thing is, for somebody who’s in terms of physiologically in the median, you may not notice it. Those guys are like the outliers. Yeah.
It was the same thing with the Olympic athletes, right? Those guys are doing grip strength test and the pole vaulters were doing maybe 160 pounds, and then I put them on the Olympic serum and they were all hitting closer to the 200 pound range oof. In grip strength. And one of the guys consistently, after a period of weeks, he broke the grip strength machine.
Nice. Because he was consistently over 200. Yeah. It was great. Actually, Alex sent me a text of, with a picture of the grip strength machine, and he had cracked the handle because he was consistently over 200 pounds all the time. And you know that’s, but those guys are the outliers, right?
They’ve pushed It’s like Ben Polski, right? Yeah. Oh yeah. Has, we were talking one time and Ben said , a lot of people are worried about me because they think I’m small right now. And I said how much do you weigh? And they said, 2 65 . Yeah. But we’re like, dude your solid muscle in your 2 65.
Why would anybody think you were swollen? He said because I was three 15 when I was at the peak of, my competition. I thought, oh my god, like 4% body fat, 315 pounds. And then I, because we had talked on the phone a lot, but I had never actually seen a picture. So I googled a picture of it and thought, oh, okay, I get it right.
You’re like, You’re a beast. You’re like solid muscle and completely ripped and, 315 pounds and just a couple percentage body fat. Yeah, that’s different. But it was very funny. But those guys, they are, they’re like the very extreme edge. But those guys, they notice the changes first because they’re right at the edge.
So if you can take somebody who’s doing 160 pound grip strength, which is already at the very top end of what most people would ever be able to do, and they were expecting, two to 3% jumps, maybe May, may actually sometimes 1% jumps and then they’re getting 13 to 17% gains in their force output.
They were blown away. I was blown away. Honestly, I didn’t, it was like a, huh. Oh wow, who knew? But that’s the kind of stuff like I, I want that out there. I would love it for more people to have access to that. Right now I’m trying to figure out how to shift the manufacturer of Carbon 60 so that I can reduce the cost so I can get it out more ubiquitously to get it to everybody.
because right now, I mean it’s exceedingly expensive program to get that stuff and it’s going to be prohibitive. It’s not something you’re gonna find on the shelf at Walmart anytime soon. Because it’s just the average person won’t be able to do that. But for people who are at the extreme edge of performance, either cognitively or physically well worth the expenditure.
Cause they’re going to see the benefits of it, and would the
[01:23:48] Dr Mike T Nelson: NeuroRx be useful for, also for strength sports? Because a lot of strength adaptations, especially lower rep stuff, is more neurologically based, which I know is an over assumption, but,
[01:24:01] Ian Mitchell: Yeah, the neuromuscular component of it.
Yes. I would recommend and do recommend actually for, competitive athletes that they do both. And depending on what particular endeavor it is that they might bias it towards one side or the other. But yeah, all of the time I recommend to people do both. I do both, and I’m by far and away cognitively pushing myself more than I am physically.
Although in the past couple months I do actually, I feel kinda at a physical deficit, even though I’m back up to speed and doing fine. I’m, I’m not running, I haven’t been working out. I think most of my physical resources have been geared towards just getting back to, a base.
And so now that I’m back to a baseline, I’m gonna take the next couple of months and go back and rehabilitate myself biologically so that I can, take the same sort of principles of what I know is going to work and amp them up in a and not get back to zero, but get from zero to a hundred kind of thing.
And honestly I’m looking forward to that. I’m excited about it. Cuz it’s the next, like rehabilitating myself from being utterly broken. That was the first part of the proof is in the pudding. The next part will be like taking myself, rolling some of the biological markers back and rolling others very much forward.
I think that’ll be the next phase of, like showing demonstrably, yeah, if you do this you can elicit this sort of response physiologically and benefit this way and that. , and it, it’s good because people can see that it, if the average person physically, and right now I’m definitively very physically average, I’m not any stunning specimen can take where you are and push it and benefit from it and end up in a really great place.
I think it’s it’s great to know that’s possible. Yeah.
[01:25:39] Dr Mike T Nelson: Awesome. Definitely keep us
[01:25:40] Ian Mitchell: updated on that and yeah, I’ll, yeah I’m happy to do it. I’d love to circle back and talk again. This is, this has been a pleasure, man. I’m glad that we actually got to do this.
[01:25:49] Dr Mike T Nelson: thank you so much for all your time. I know you’re super busy with, there’s tons of projects you’re in that we didn’t even talk about yet, but where can people find out more about you and Wizard Science and just all the plethora stuff you got going?
[01:26:01] Ian Mitchell: Go to wizardsciences.com. That’s, my main website and, hit me up on Instagram at either at Wizard Sciences, they’ll route it to me or @Ian Mitchell1.
And, you can find me there. I’m just a normal guy and I’m actually surprisingly accessible. I am insanely busy, but if people reach out, I’ll get back to them. It may take a bit, but I always get back to ’em.
[01:26:23] Dr Mike T Nelson: Wow, that’s awesome. Thank you so much again for all your time. I’d highly encourage people to check out all the stuff you have going on there and yeah, I’m gonna try some of the Wizard Science stuff.
I’ve used the ozone product. My wife was really liked that for some of the digestive issues that she’s had yeah. We’ll I’ll give it a whirl and we’ll keep you updated on how it.
[01:26:40] Ian Mitchell: Yeah, please do. I actually, I’m always really curious to see, what’s helping and how it’s helping because the more I know about the way things are benefiting people, when people reach out to me, if I know something, whether it’s my stuff or somebody else’s I always try and nudge them in the direction of what’s gonna help.
So yeah, please keep me up to date. Cool.
[01:26:58] Dr Mike T Nelson: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Have a wonderful day.
[01:27:02] Ian Mitchell: I’ll take it easy. See ya. Thank you.
[01:27:07] Dr Mike T Nelson: . Huge thanks to Ian Mitchell for coming on the podcast today. I really appreciate the wide ranging discussion and all the wonderful things he is doing in the world. I’m super excited to see what comes out of it, especially in the future as we gather more and more data. So huge thanks to him for taking his time out.
I know he was running around Austin between meeting. To discuss this with us today, as I mentioned in the intro, I’ve set up a discount with Wizard Sciences. Go to wizard sciences.com/discount/nelson. That’ll save you 15% off a single purchase there. You can do multiple items. I don’t believe it works on the subscription.
But I’ll give you a way to test out some of his products there, which I am in the process of doing right now. I don’t make any money off of it, but I would love to hear your data and feedback. Either way, whatever you find, I would love to hear it. I’m just my way of collecting more data.
And if you want to hear about everything else that I’m up to, hop on the newsletter, it’s free. And go to miketnelson.com. Most of my content now goes out over the exclusive newsletter. I don’t ever send or rent your address to anyone else. It only stays with us. So go to mikey nelson.com and if you enjoyed this podcast or if you didn’t give me some feedback, I would love to hear from you.
Any other guests, anyone else that you would like to see on the podcast or topics? Let me, know. Thank you so much for listening today. Really appreciate it. If you enjoyed this one, please leave us a review. It just takes a few seconds there on whatever podcast player you’re using. Really helps us out to get more guests and to continue bringing you great free information.
Thank you so much for listening. Really appreciate it. Have a wonderful day, and we will talk to you all next week.
Leave A Comment