Dr. Joe Pizzorno, a prominent naturopathic doctor and Board Chair at the Institute for Functional Medicine (IFM), joins James to discuss the unifying factors among the many channels of health medicine, which include acupuncture, naturopathic, functional, integrative, chiropractic, and Ayurvedic medicine.

This conversation addresses foundational aspects of health, such as nutrition and lifestyle, that support optimal mitochondrial function for vitality. Dr. Pizzorno also shared the need for scientific research to support the effectiveness of health medicine practices and calls for increased funding in this area. For example, he hopes that we will have access to reliable clinical testing for mitochondrial energy and ATP production in the future.

Listen to the episode to learn more about:

  • Why Dr. Pizzorno chose the term “health medicine”
  • Preventing neurodegeneration by eating organically grown food
  • The importance of flavonoids
  • Vitalism (creating health) versus pathogenesis and salutogenesis
  • The need for a clear conceptual basis for integrative medicine
  • The great potential for Health Medicine Alliance to improve the public health baseline

Related resources:


Environmental Medicine and Medical Censorship | Ep. 316


Dr. Joe Pizzorno: When we look at a person, you look at one person, that person looks vital, that person looks at debilitated. What’s the difference? Could it simply be their ability to produce ATP? We start looking at it. Everything in the body depends upon ATP. I go even further, few people realize how much ATP we produce every day. At rest, the average person produces their body weight and ATP every day. Without ATP, nothing works. So, measuring ATP, indeed is a great way of determining just how vital that person is because it shows up their mitochondria working.

A good way of determining mitochondrial function, of course, is to directly measure ATP. That’s available right now in laboratories. I’m hoping someday it’ll be available to us in clinical laboratories, but I haven’t seen a test yet that I could rely on.

James Maskell: Welcome to the Evolution of Medicine podcast, the place health professionals come to hear from innovators and agitators leading the charge. We cover the latest clinical breakthroughs and health technology, as well as practical tools to help you transform your practice and the health of your community.

This podcast is brought to you by the Lifestyle Matrix Resource Center, who provide a range of options to help you deliver successful, effective functional and integrative medicine. To find out more and to get started, go to goevomed.com/lmrc. That’s goevomed.com/lmrc.

Hello and welcome to the podcast this week. I’m super excited to speak with Dr. Joe Pizzorno. Many of you will know that name. Dr. Pizzorno is one of the original naturopathic doctors. He’s on the board of the Institute for Functional Medicine, has been centrally involved in many organizations in functional, integrative, naturopathic, environmental medicine, incredible lecturer, incredible thinker. This podcast came off the back of an editorial that he wrote last year, calling on a new nomenclature for creating unity in those particular worlds, and in those worlds called health medicine. It’s something that I’ve thought about a lot. It’s something that as you’ll hear today that he spent a lot of time thinking about how do we bring together all of these disparate silos in the world of vitalism together into one unified effort, one unified thesis, and one unified community.

It’s something that I’ve tried to do over the last 10 years in the Functional Forum, and what you’ll hear today is some conversation about how to make that happen, and some of the clinical underpinnings, and some of the potential resting in the new science of the mitochondria. It was a really interesting half an hour. I think it’ll be heart filling for many of us in the community. Enjoy.

So, a warm welcome back to The Evolution of Medicine, Dr. Joe Pizzorno. Welcome, Doc.

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Thank you, my friend. Great to be with you.

James Maskell: I’m really excited to be here, and I’m excited for this topic particularly because I think the conversation when I started the Functional Forum, 10 years ago, the whole thing in my head was, how do we bring together practitioners who are practicing 90% of the same medicine and see themselves as one cohesive community? Some of the history of the Functional Forum is that I went to, in October 2013, I went to the New York Naturopathic Conference, the New York Naturopathic Association. One of the things that I saw there was they did 15-minute talks in between the hour talks. I realized that if you only give someone 15 minutes, they put all the best stuff into their 15 minutes, and maybe that’s a more interesting way of doing medical education, and that’s what became the Functional Forum, is that we only gave people 15 minutes.

But I saw also my goal was to try and bring people together. I chose the functional name at that moment because in my estimation, I felt like what was needed was a unified clinical operating system. The functional medicine operating system was the best thing that I’d seen, but I think it was a little naive in retrospect to think that everyone would come together under the functional umbrella. Here we are 10 years later, you and I have spoken a number of times about your efforts to create unity and coherence across some of the areas of your background. You’re very involved with naturopathic medicine. You’re very involved with functional medicine. So, why don’t we just take it back to the beginning. Why is this such a passion of yours, and what is some of your thinking being over the years about the reason to unify, and how to unify, and how to use the right lexicon to unify?

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Well, great question, James. So, if you look at the history of medicine, there’s been basically two schools of thought. Now, there’s lots of ways that they’ve manifest, but two schools of thought. One school of thought says the body is a victim of the environment, and the role of the doctor is to take control. The other one says the body has tremendous ability to heal, and the role of the doctor is to understand, well, why is that healing happening? One focuses on what’s broken and treat what’s broken, treat disease, and one’s focused on the body. How to make it stronger? How do you not only prevent disease, but get the body to then reverse disease when it’s already established.

So, a lot of people have looked at that as alternative, one or the other. No, we need the best from both. I think that that belief that was imposed upon the populace for the last 100 years, that doctors are the source of health, and if you’re sick, it’s not your responsibility. You go and just go see the doctor, the doctor will take care of you, is one of the downsides of this excessive belief in the role of the doctor is to treat disease, and the patient is the unwitting victim. So, since that particular viewpoint has dominated healthcare, we now suffer the highest burden of chronic disease in every age group ever in human history, and life expectancy is finally going down, now that the lifesaving procedures were no longer enough to make up for the huge deficit of medicine up until that very end stage disease.

So, when we talk about health medicine, many different professions are practicing it, and they practice in different ways. Sometimes they can talk with each other very well, sometimes they can’t. So, the reason I decided to try to, in my editorial, clearly define what is health medicine, was an effort to help people look at what the commonalities are because the commonalities of naturopathic medicine, functional medicine, integrative medicine, acupuncture, chiropractic, they’re all the same, and Ayurvedic medicine, as well. They’re all the same. They’re all about promoting health. Of course, we treat disease, you have to do that as well. There’s plenty of natural therapies for treated disease, but that’s the second choice, not the first choice. First choice is make people healthier, and the second choice is when things have gone beyond what the body can do, now let’s do that high-tech intervention.

James Maskell: Let me ask you this. So, the words, health medicine, what is the history of your thoughts about the nomenclature?

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: That’s another good question. I’ve debated a number of different terms over the years, and I finally decided on health medicine because it was so clear. You could have called it vitalistic medicine. We could have called it… What was one of the other ones I was looking at? Oh, ecological medicine was another one that’s being used. There are a number of different terms that have been used, but they didn’t quite get to the concept. Now functional medicine gets close, but it’s not quite there. As I tried various ones, I ran different titles by different people, my influence group, which goes both ways, and health medicine is the only one that resonated.

James Maskell: Interesting. What do you think are the core principles that you think unify those disparate efforts in health? If you are speaking to a chiropractor or an Ayurvedic… I mean, this was one of the things that when I first started my career and I was selling to those types of practitioners, and I recognized that they were doing the same thing, but they just had a completely different language, and that was limiting their ability to realize how similar the efforts were. What do you see as the unifying characteristics of the medicine?

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Well, it’s the same as the naturopath one. The body has tremendous ability to heal. We just give it a chance. So, the naturopathic look at that is remove the barriers to healing and give the body what it needs to heal. So, every one of these groups, you look at what they’re doing, remove the barriers to healing, which allows the body to work. Look at chiropractic. What do they do? They restore the normal musculoskeletal neurological balance so the body can function the way it’s supposed to. Acupuncture with the meridians, what are they doing? They’re looking for blockages in the flow of chi and how we loosen those things up. You look at the nutritionist, the same thing. Give the body what it needs. Herbalists are kind of on both sides because the herbs can be used either to promote health and healing, but they can also be used drugs as well, and so they’re kind of on both sides. I should have included herbalist in my earlier list of people.

So, anyway, it’s all down to helping the body be strong… removing the barriers to healing and helping the body be stronger. They all have their different ways of doing it, different ways of conceptualize it, but the basic same concept.

James Maskell: So, we’ll put the link to your editorial there because I shared it last year in our newsletter because I thought it was really well thought through. But do you want to just share the high level of that, and why you chose to write that, and how long that’s been coming?

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: I’ve been… Actually, that editorial took me about two years to write because I had some concepts, and I ran around some people to see what they had to say. Ask me a question again. I went off on a chain of thought and didn’t respond to your question.

James Maskell: Give us your sort of quick overview of the editorial, and what was included in it, and what the thesis is.

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: So, in my editorial, I try to look at not only the commonalities of the various professions, but then how that would work with conventional medicine because it’s easy to have a lot of theories, but if the vested interests don’t want it, then the political economic and social barriers are going to be extreme. So, I said, here’s the problems with the current system. It does some great things like saving people’s lives. Get in an accident, like I got in a motorcycle accident, broke my ankle, Nice to have some surgery to fix that ankle. So, lots of good things there.

But on the other side, you’ve got to always go back to healing the person. What I said to conventional medicine was, “Okay, folks. We now know that the system is overwhelmed. We have too many sick people. It’s costing too much money, it’s unsustainable.” We’re at what? 20% of the GTP right now for healthcare. It’s not sustainable. Tell you what. Why don’t you be more friendly towards us natural medicine people, our health medicine people, and bring us to the table, recognize we have a place to play. We’ll try to make the population a bit healthier so that you’re not overloaded with those people who do need your care. Trying to do something to help both sides.

James Maskell: Yeah, I think that’s absolutely necessary, and I feel very aligned to that personally because I feel that organizing health medicine in such a way that it’s palatable to the people that pay for everything and pull the strings is almost like the work of our generation. One of the things, I featured Dr. Robin Berzin on the Functional Forum recently with Bill Parsley Health, and one of the things that she put her success down to with having the largest practice was that she’s tracked her outcomes, so she was able to show that with this health medicine perspective and operating system for her care, people get outcomes that aren’t really available to conventional medicine for a range of chronic illnesses. I can’t help but think that that’s a key starting point for if you want to prove that this works well, you need to be able to prove it with data.

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Absolutely, absolutely. That bit about proving with data is one of my key concerns because what we’ve done is we’ve given 99.95% of the government research dollars to advancing the conventional medicine model. So, of course, they’ve got way more research, which they then usually say, “We have research, and you don’t.” Well, because you blocked all the research sources of funds.

James Maskell: Yeah.

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: What we should be doing is making sure that a bigger percent of that dollar is being spent is done in research in this area. Because when I started Bastyr University, I coined the term, science-based natural medicine, because I believe that the way to advance medicine is with good science. Nobody owns science. Science is a way of looking at something you believe in and testing it. Is it right or wrong? So, many people would say to me, “Well, you can’t bring science into natural medicine because science is what the medical profession used to destroy all the other healing arts.” No, wait a minute. Science is a tool. It’s not owned by anybody, and conventional medicine got better for their model by using science, although their model was kind of distorted. I say the same thing with us, we can get better using science.

So, then the old timers would say to me, “Well, okay. That sounds fine, but I know what I do, works.” I said, “How do you know it works?” They said, “Well, because my patients tell me they’re better.” Just look at this a little more closely. If you’re a good doctor and you can engage the belief of your patients, almost no matter what you do, they’re going to get somewhat better. So, is what you’re doing helping them get better, being ineffective, or actually inhibiting their ability to get better? The only way to know is by doing research. Just because you have a favorite therapy that you think is working, you don’t know it’s working until you actually compare it to it not using that. You have to compare it. The advantage to this is that we get better. We don’t do science. We don’t do research to prove ourselves. We do science and research to get better.

James Maskell: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, I think that’s a key focus, and I’m glad that you are sharing that. But obviously, in that case that I just shared with Dr. Berzin, she had to build a big enough organization in order to do the science to prove it across thousands of patients. That’s not really available to everyone. So, I think that… but I think it is important for us to do.

One of the things that I’ve been talking about recently is in our network of practices, if you look at the thousands of functional medicine practices, but also, there’s thousands of naturopathic practices, and lifestyle medicine, and integrative care, what would it mean? What would it take to track outcomes across that network so that we could really see what was happening on that end? But I agree with you that there is a certain level of precision in the science that’s needed in order to really separate what’s happening from what’s not happening.

Since you wrote that editorial and since you communicated the ideas about health medicine, I know at the IFM annual conference a couple years ago, what has been the feedback movement interest as compared to some of your other efforts with the nomenclature?

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Good question. So, in terms of being an editor of a journal, I got the most letters to the editor on that editorial of any editorial I’ve done since we started IMCJ, and I’ve written, God, 125 editorials so far, so clearly have stimulated a lot of interest, and I had people tell me they actually changed names of the clinic to reflect the term, health. So, I was really happy to see that. Although I did an editorial on it, other organizations are also engaged in that. You look at AIHM, the Academy for Integrative and Health Medicine. So, clearly, when Mimi Guarnery put together that organization with her colleagues, she put health into it. So, the concept is there, and others have been kind of touching on it. I try to make it a clear focal purpose.

See, one of the challenges with, for example, the term integrative medicine, and even though it’s kind of being used as a broad term for this field, it doesn’t say what it is. It says, okay, we integrate things. Well, what are your concepts? What are your algorithms? What are the underlying principles that are important? I think that’s a great weakness of integrative medicine is there’s a lack of a clear conceptual basis. So, that’s one of the advantages of functional medicine, clear conceptual basis. Naturopathic medicine, clear conceptual basis. Acupuncture, chiropractic all have clear conceptual basis. Integrative medicine does not. I think that if it’s going to advance as a healing art or as a movement, it has to have a clear map, and algorithm, and conceptualization. Not just, “Oh, we integrate.” What’s that mean?

James Maskell: Yeah. One of the efforts that I’ve done in this year that’s been quite rewarding, and I think it needs a lot more energy behind it in 2024, as being what I call the Health Medicine Alliance. That was pinned off your idea, but what I recognized last year was that there were all of these organizations that were trying to make headway in bringing palatable health medicine into health systems. Functional medicine was doing a job. They had got into the Cleveland Clinic and had some progress there and data. The integrated medicine had these academic consortium, and they’ve made progress into many different areas.

But then I went to the lifestyle medicine conference last year and saw that over 100 now health systems have signed up for lifestyle medicine. I think it’s the least caustic of the thing. It’s the easiest to say yes to because I think every doctor wants lifestyle for their patients anyway, and probably thinks that they should be doing it and knows that it helps. But I was really excited to see that they had made so much progress in that area, and I just thought, is there some way that we could all learn from each other to see how to bring this whole thing forward? Because it’s nice to see that momentum.

It’s been interesting. I think it’s been interesting. What you see is that, again, even in the people concern, the person leading lifestyle medicine into a health system has a functional medicine doctor. That kind of thing is pretty open because once you understand, okay, yeah, lifestyle can make a huge impact, and that should be the whole foundation. That’s why it’s the bottom of the functional medicine operating system. But as function decreases over time, and you can pick that up across the seven systems, you need a more precise way of intervening at that way. I think… I don’t know. I hope it’s starting to make an impact because I think that ultimately a health system implementing lifestyle medicine is going to be a more fertile ground for a more richer standard of care five years down the road than some group that’s still resisting all of it.

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Very well said. Actually, I’d like to add to that. So, we’re talking about lifestyle of medicine. We’re talking about what the naturopathic doctors call foundations of health. So, if you don’t do the foundations of health, most of the other things you do aren’t going to have much effect if you’re not doing the foundations of health. So, what are the foundations of health?

I had an interesting experience. I just recently, I gave a lecture for Jeff Bland at the PLMI, and the lecture I gave was on the synergy between environmental toxins and depletion of unimportant molecules in the food supply resulted in increased neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration. So, when I give a lecture like this, I always look at the most laced research, see if there’s some new test to consider or some special vitamin to use or herb, or if it’s just something really unusual to do. So, I looked into research, and I went, and as prepared my lecture, and I gave the most different intervention recommendation at the end that I ever have.

Because at the end, after I showed all how these toxins are causing all these disease, and correlation between organic chlorine pesticides and dementia, and organophosphate pesticides and autism in children, I just look at all these bad things, and then I looked at… You look at the protective mechanism that the body has, and the protective mechanisms mainly depend upon what I call, unimportant molecules. So, these are non-vitamins and minerals. These are other things, the polyphenols, the bioflavonoids, carcinoids, all these things which have basically are now leaving the food supply, because we grow foods chemically rather than organically, while you maintain most of vitamins and minerals and such, all these other factors decrease dramatically, like 90% reduction in many of these flavonoids, we grow food chemically rather than organically.

So, at the end of my lecture, I say to people, “What is the best intervention for prevention, and even reversing mental degeneration?” Only inorganically grown food. Now if you can, because 60% of the neurotoxins are coming from food. So, first off, inorganically grown food. Now even better is enroll in a timeshare, in a farm share so that you have an organic farmer that you’re subsidizing to provide you good food and best of all, grow as much your own food as you can. So, I went back… As I went through all this detailed of all these reductionistic things, I went back to say, find yourself health. Eat healthy food that’s not contaminated, and most of these problems go away. So, we have to get back to the foundational things of healthy living, and that lifestyle medicine is exactly where you got to be.

James Maskell: Absolutely. I love that, and I love the simplicity of that. I think that what we’re talking about there is very aligned, and I’m glad that the prescription is that simple because ultimately, if you don’t follow that prescription, there’s not enough supplements that you can take to reverse it in the other direction.

I’d like to get your thoughts actually, because speaking of cutting-edge conferences, I was actually at a conference a couple of weeks ago, and it was a mitochondrial conference. In fact, the highlights of this conference are going to be the December Functional Forum, but Dr. Andrew Heyman gave an incredible introductory keynote called From Silos to Salugenesis, and essentially, talking about how he believes that for the first time, you can actually measure vitalism and ultimately, that’s always been the crux of these two schools. There’s vitalism, which is creating healthy humans, and then there’s pathogenesis and salutogenesis.

His thought is that with the new technology that’s available, we can almost measure the amount of energy coming from the mitochondria, and that was as good a proxy for measuring vitalism as anything that’s ever been because of all the different factors like what slows down the mitochondria? All the things that you just talked about, the environmental toxins, the infections, the lack of nutrition and so forth, what powers up the mitochondria? The good food, the polyphenols, the flavonoids, all those kind of things. So, it was a very interesting thesis and I’d just love to get your… I was excited that I went to that conference and as I’m sitting there, I’m like, I get to interview Joe Pizzorno in a couple of weeks and I’m going to ask him about this. I think he’d into it. So, what do you think about that?

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: 100% agree. So, I was asked by Life chiropractic college 10 years ago to give a lecture on the Vis. So, the Vis is this naturopathic concept that’s also held dear by the chiropractors. The Vis is the vital force in the body. What is driving us towards health and function and how do you measure it? How do you conceptualize it? So, I looked at a bunch of different ways of doing it. I had three ways, but I’ll just talk about one that was mitochondria. I think if you look at it, when we look at a person, you look at one person, that person looks vital, that person looks at debilitated. What’s the difference? Could it simply be their ability to produce ATP? We start looking at it. Everything in the body depends upon ATP. I go even further, few people realize how much ATP we produce every day. At rest, the average person produces their body weight and ATP every day. Without ATP, nothing works. So, measuring ATP, indeed is a great way of determining just how vital that person is because it shows up their mitochondria working.

A good way of determining mitochondrial function, of course, is to directly measure ATP. That’s available right now in laboratories. I’m hoping someday it’ll be available to us in clinical laboratories, but I haven’t seen a test yet that I could rely on. Most tests that determine, try to assess mitochondrial function are looking at molecules in the urine that show up in the mitochondrial aren’t working properly. So, that’s somewhat useful when you find damaged mitochondria, but what we most want is to determine when the mitochondria are optimally producing ATP.

James Maskell: One other thing that he said that was interesting, I’d love to get your thoughts on is that for years, studying mitochondrion was the way that mitochondria research was done. Ultimately, what they’re sort of understanding now is that it’s sort of like there’s this network effect between the mitochondria in the different cells locally, but then across the whole body, and there’s sort of like an energetic signaling that is happening between those groups. Therefore, any historical mitochondria research that was being done on a particular cell was not really that useful because there’s a symphony harmony that’s being created in the interrelation between those that is actually where the action’s happening.

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Well said. Also, when people think about mitochondria, they think, its job is just to produce ATP. Well, that’s true. It’s where the ATP comes from. Mitochondria are involved a lot more physiological reactions than just ATP. There are many molecules that are modified pretty significantly by the mitochondria, and so one of the areas… Actually, it turns out I’ve been studying this a lot lately, is the role of the mitochondria in cancer. Because normally, as you know, we produce hundreds maybe thousands of cancer cells every day. If you’re a smoker, you can produce more cancer cells, for example. If you’re a health nut like me, you produce less of those bad things. So, when we’re looking at the mitochondria, their function in modifying other molecules is very significant. I think the measuring ATP is not only a useful thing for determine how well the mitochondria are working in terms of energy production, it’s also a way of looking at how well the mitochondria working for doing everything they’re supposed to be doing.

In cancer, the mitochondria are the first line of defense when it cell starts becoming abnormal, typically when the reduced to oxidized ratio, glutathione gets too low. So, in a healthy cell, reduced oxidized glutathione is a ratio of 100. But once it gets down to about 10, the cells know they’re bad, there’s something bad going on, and they kill themselves. So, for cancer to survive, that’s a sabotage of mitochondria’s roll in killing them before they can grow and start metastasizing. The same thing with the immune system. The immune system is signaled by the mitochondria when the cells become abnormal. So, another thing that cancer cells have to do is stop the mitochondria signaling of the immune system to kill the cell that become cancers. So, when we think about the mitochondria, they do so much in the body that’s just absolutely critical, not only for keeping us alive, but also for keeping us from dying.

James Maskell: It’s really interesting. Obviously, one of the things that you could pull from that is how and why did America do so badly during COVID? You could see that that underlying level of mitochondrial health, that’s suboptimal, that is signaling the immune system, then you come into contact with something, a novel pathogen, it’s no surprise that then our immune systems are functioning at a lower level and people who are maybe eating a Mediterranean diet and living more in harmony with nature.

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: Yes, absolutely.

James Maskell: All right, interesting. Well look, I really appreciate the opportunity to jam with you on this topic, Joe. I guess I just want to acknowledge the leadership that you provide across all the areas of influence to try and create harmony. I think coming up on the 10-year anniversary of the Functional Forum, which is February 2024, looking back, I still believe that there is a need of a unified clinical operating system, and that I do believe that naturopathic medicine, as a medicine of principles, can’t really be that, and that what you said with integrative, they’re the same. But I’m willing to juggle the nomenclature because I recognize that functional medicine, the way that it’s perceived in the market perhaps, creates suboptimal languaging for unification.

I’m excited about the health medicine vernacular, and I’m just grateful to help in any way that I can to bring these together because I see what you see, which is that I think that health organizations are coming around in the conversations that I have been in at the highest level within organizations that organize health. I think there is an emerging reality that they realize that they don’t know how to create health, and that this is starting to cost and hit the bottom line in interesting ways. I’m excited to see how the wisdom of our community makes its way to meaningful scale. I want to appreciate the work that you’ve done to build that unified framework, and also, I recognize that you are still going at full steam because there’s a lot of work left to do, right?

Dr. Joe Pizzorno: There is indeed. So, at times I get discouraged looking at so much ill health in the world, and it’s continuing to increase, but I’m also seeing this increase in commitment of people to being healthy. In many ways, I think we’re seeing a bifurcating world of people deciding to be healthy, follow the nature’s way, and those who decide to follow the chemical way. They each have constraints and weaknesses, but if you want to live long and healthy and enjoy your grandchildren, et cetera, you got to follow the health pathway because the chemical pathway, well, on the short term looks pretty good, and in the long term, it’s not successful strategy.

James Maskell: Absolutely. Yeah. Well, amen to that. Well, Dr. Pizzorno, thank you so much for being part here of the Evolution of Medicine podcast. We will have the link to the Health Medicine Journal entry that was from last year, and I’ll make sure that that’s available to people and we’ll put it out in the newsletter again. Yeah, if you can tune in, check out the Functional Forum next in December because we will have some segments from that presentation from Dr. Heyman where he really worked together to look at a unified thesis, and also to bring together the history of vitalism and pair it with the emerging world of measurable health. That is an exciting moment for everyone.

So, thanks everyone for tuning in. This is The Evolution of Medicine Podcast. I’m your host, James Maskell. I’ve been here with Dr. Joe Pizzorno. Thanks so much for tuning in, and we’ll see you next time.

Subscribe

RSS Feed

Download

Click here to download this podcast

music provided by intomusic.co

1 Shares
Tweet
Pin1
Share