Beyond the Scalpel: Dr. Ahmet’s Conversation on Care, Hope, and Living Well

Prof. Dato’ Sri Dr. Mike Chan joins renowned oral surgeon Dr. Ahmet Utku Ozan and his wife, Derya, for a wide-ranging conversation about personalized care, healthspan, and the relationships that shape a medical experience.

A surgeon’s description of another practitioner becomes the most revealing moment in a conversation that otherwise ranges across joints, organs, cells, and the possibilities of regenerative medicine.

“I am a surgeon. So I represent sword,” says Dr. Ahmet Utku Ozan.

When he turns to Prof. Mike Chan, his description changes. “He represents love.”

The comparison is personal rather than clinical. It reveals how strongly Dr. Ahmet has responded to the person sitting beside him: someone whose manner, in his eyes, expresses a different quality of care.

That exchange gives the interview its human center. Over approximately 29 minutes, Prof. Mike Chan explains his approach to regenerative and integrative medicine, while Dr. Ahmet and his wife, Derya, describe what they have noticed, what feels different and what they hope the experience will mean. European Wellness identifies Prof. Mike Chan as its founder and chairman. Here, however, the conversation is less concerned with titles than with the questions that accompany a medical encounter: How is an individual understood? What constitutes a complete program? What should patients expect? And what does living longer matter if daily life remains uncomfortable?

Their discussion is expansive, sometimes technical and often informal. Its most persuasive human moments are not promises of restored youth. They are the moments when the speakers acknowledge difference, uncertainty, the need to keep learning and the importance of being treated with attention.

A Surgeon’s Perspective on a Different Kind of Care

Dr. Ahmet brings a professional observer’s perspective to the conversation. He identifies himself as a surgeon and later refers to his experience owning hospitals and clinical chains. He is therefore looking at more than the explanations he receives. He is also watching how the organization works, how staff behave and whether the environment reflects the discipline he expects from a medical setting.

Yet his first substantial contribution is not an assessment of equipment or technique. It is the “sword” and “love” comparison, a striking way of describing the difference he perceives between his own professional identity and Prof. Mike Chan’s personal approach.

The exchange is followed by a brief conversation about learning from one another. Its warmth matters because it changes the tone of what might otherwise be a one-way technical presentation. Dr. Ahmet is not simply listening to a lecturer. He is responding to a colleague whose attitude has made an impression on him.

The story is not that surgical expertise disappears when another approach enters the room. Rather, Dr. Ahmet’s remarks suggest that professional experience can coexist with curiosity about a different style of care. His interest remains recognizably that of a doctor: attentive to people, systems, and the possibility of learning something useful.

Joint Health as the Starting Point

The medical discussion begins with joint health. Prof. Mike Chan talks about movement, discomfort and changes in the tissues surrounding a joint, using the knees and ankles of people who play sports as familiar examples.

He describes the approach he favors as multi-component rather than dependent on a single intervention. In his explanation, attention to inflammation sits alongside attention to cartilage, connective tissue, and the joint environment. He discusses materials he associates with those different functions, including mesenchymal cells, cartilage-related components and placental material.

These are his descriptions of a proposed treatment approach, not demonstrated outcomes for Dr. Ahmet. The recording provides no follow-up measurements of Dr. Ahmet’s joint function.

What the discussion does establish is the organizing idea Prof. Mike Chan wants his listeners to understand: he sees a joint problem as involving more than one tissue or process, and therefore argues for looking beyond a single ingredient. That theme continues through the rest of the interview, as the conversation moves from one joint to the condition of the body as a whole.

Why He Emphasizes the Individual Rather Than a Single Formula

Prof. Mike Chan repeatedly returns to variation between people. He discusses different organs, different concerns and different practical circumstances, rather than describing one identical course for everyone.

“Everyone is different. No one is alike,” he says.

For him, that difference has consequences for planning. He talks about prioritizing particular concerns and returning to other areas later, rather than attempting to address everything in one sitting. He also acknowledges a practical problem familiar to international patients: people traveling from overseas cannot necessarily return as frequently as a clinic might suggest.

Affordability enters the conversation here, well before his closing remarks on charitable care. He says that proposed intervals may need to change when a person cannot afford a more frequent program. His comments reveal the tension between the program a practitioner wishes to offer and the time, travel, and financial demands a patient can manage.

The intervals he mentions should be understood as his practice-based proposals, not a general schedule for readers to follow. The broader point is that a program becomes meaningful only when its demands are considered alongside the individual’s circumstances.

From Assessment to Repair: His Explanation of the DDRR Framework

To explain the wider program, Prof. Mike Chan introduces what he calls a “DDRR paradigm.” He describes a sequence involving diagnosis, detoxification, and repair, followed by regeneration and rejuvenation.

In the assessment stage, he says the program considers existing laboratory work and medical reports, then adds what he describes as biological analysis. He mentions gut health, lipids, heavy metals, and the condition of particular organs as areas of interest.

He then discusses detoxification procedures and, subsequently, repair. His central message is that an infusion, on its own, does not represent the entire program. He presents it as one element in a wider process rather than the whole experience.

That distinction helps explain why the interview repeatedly moves between technical procedures and the language of completeness. Prof. Mike Chan is describing a program with several stages; Derya later describes her impression of experiencing a fuller package.

The program’s terminology is his own explanation of the care offered. The recording does not independently validate each assessment device, detoxification procedure or therapeutic claim. Understanding how a provider organizes care is not the same as establishing the effectiveness of every component. Nevertheless, the framework is important to the story because it shows how Prof. Mike Chan connects assessment, proposed intervention, and ongoing attention.

Acknowledging That One Treatment Cannot Answer Every Problem

Some of the most useful statements in the interview are those that qualify its wider ambitions.

When Prof. Mike Chan turns to autoimmune conditions, he distinguishes between damage affecting an organ and the underlying process responsible for that damage. He rejects the idea that a single claim about stem cells should be taken as an answer to every autoimmune condition.

“If someone was say stem cells will cure all the autoimmune, I would not say that,” he says.

The wording is conversational, but the qualification is clear. He argues that addressing an affected organ is not, by itself, enough; the underlying problem also requires attention. Whatever a reader makes of his proposed methods, that distinction prevents this part of the conversation from becoming a universal-cure claim.

He also describes continuing to learn from patients and doctors despite his long experience in the field. The admission is important. It places observation and uncertainty within the discussion, rather than presenting experience as a reason to stop asking questions.

The interview contains ambitious therapeutic ideas, but it also contains a more restrained thread: not every condition is the same, not every problem has the same cause and not every proposed intervention is sufficient on its own.

Safety Is Part of the Conversation, Not a Question to Set Aside

The discussion becomes particularly consequential when Prof. Mike Chan describes animal-derived fetal cells and tissue sources. He explains his rationale for selecting material at particular developmental stages and discusses the possibility of pathogens passing from animals to humans.

He refers to “specific pathogen-free” source animals and other screening-related terminology. These are descriptions of sourcing and safety measures he says matter. They should not be read as proof that a finished treatment is risk-free or approved for a particular use.

The distinction is especially important because the conversation also includes regulatory references. A statement about an animal supplier, a source material or a laboratory practice cannot, by itself, establish approval of the treatment given to a patient. That requires evidence specific to the product, intended use, and relevant jurisdiction.

For context, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s patient guidance warns that unapproved regenerative products can carry risks including infection and unwanted immune or inflammatory responses. That U.S. guidance does not determine the regulatory status of a Malaysian clinic, but it reinforces why questions about evidence, sourcing and safety belong alongside questions about possibility.

Similarly, Prof. Mike Chan’s comparison between cell-based approaches and organ transplantation is an argument for his preferred direction of care, not evidence that a cell-based intervention can replace an indicated transplant. The interview offers an explanation of his outlook; it is not a substitute for product-level clinical evidence or an individual medical assessment.

Derya’s Perspective: Experiencing a Fuller Program

Derya speaks less than the two doctors, but her contributions give the discussion an essential personal perspective.

“It’s a totally different experience,” she says.

She refers to earlier experiences in which, as she puts it, some segments were missing. Her description of the current visit is concise: “I think we experienced the whole package.”

She does not specify every missing segment or present a procedure-by-procedure comparison. Her words are better understood as an impression of how the experience fits together. What matters to her is not only one treatment or one consultation, but the feeling of receiving something more complete.

She also expresses hope for better results. That hope is part of the story, but it is not a measured result. The interview does not provide before-and-after clinical findings or a later assessment demonstrating a change in health.

Her perspective highlights an aspect of care that technical explanations can overlook. People experience a program through its continuity, its organization and the sense they make of it. Derya’s comments show how that overall experience can shape optimism even while the eventual clinical outcome remains to be established.

What Dr. Ahmet Notices in the Team and Laboratories

When the discussion turns to the European Wellness environment, Dr. Ahmet becomes more specific.

He contrasts what he has observed there with his own experience managing hospitals and clinical chains. In those settings, he says, he often felt that staff were eager to leave. At European Wellness, he does not describe the same feeling.

His remarks focus on cleanliness, respect, professionalism, and dedication. Derya briefly interjects with the word “Dedicated,” and he continues his description of the personnel. The exchange is small, but it shows that the impression is shared in the moment rather than delivered as a rehearsed list.

Dr. Ahmet also says he has visited the laboratories. He describes their organization in terms of discipline: “They are very professional, like run as a discipline of army.”

His professional background gives those observations a particular context. Cleanliness, organization, and staff conduct are things he has had to consider in his own working life. They help explain his confidence in the people and environment he encountered, while remaining his personal impressions rather than an independent inspection.

For Dr. Ahmet, the experience of care includes what happens around the consultation as well as what is said within it.

Integrative Care and the Return to Oral Health

Prof. Mike Chan describes his preferred direction as integrative medicine: an approach in which conventionally trained doctors also consider the regenerative methods he advocates.

His explanation is not confined to cells. He discusses hormones, metabolism and other aspects of an individual’s condition, arguing that giving one intervention without considering the wider picture is insufficient.

The conversation then turns to teeth, gums and oral health, a subject on which Dr. Ahmet responds readily. Prof. Mike Chan raises questions about bone loss, the tissue needed to support an implant and approaches to gum tissue. The two men’s exchange connects their broader discussion of the body with the practical concerns of the mouth.

Their exchange reveals a shared willingness to discuss oral care as part of a person’s wider health experience. It is an area where the conversation becomes particularly collaborative, with Dr. Ahmet responding to the questions raised rather than simply listening to the explanation.

The discussion also returns, implicitly, to Dr. Ahmet’s opening contrast. The practitioner associated with surgical intervention is not excluded from the conversation about other approaches. He participates in it, bringing his own frame of reference.

Healthspan: What Does Living Longer Actually Mean?

The interview’s broadest question is not how many years a person can live, but what those years feel like.

Prof. Mike Chan uses the term “healthspan” to distinguish the quality of a person’s life from its duration. His emphasis is on comfort and the burden of pain, rather than the number of birthdays alone.

“When you have a lot of pain, it’s not health span,” he says.

He goes on to make ambitious claims about longevity and biological age. The interview does not provide evidence demonstrating those numerical claims, and they should not be treated as promised outcomes. The human question underneath them is more direct: what is gained by additional years if a person cannot enjoy them comfortably?

That question connects the opening discussion of movement and joint discomfort with the later conversation about oral health. It also gives the feature a focus beyond a specific product or procedure. Healthspan, as the speakers discuss it, is a way of asking whether care contributes to a life that feels more manageable and worthwhile.

Research, Curiosity and the Willingness to Keep Learning

Toward the end, Prof. Mike Chan turns to hair growth and pigmentation. He talks about follicles, nutrient support, and questions he has received about gray hair. A personal haircut anecdote makes the discussion more informal, but it is not evidence of a treatment effect.

The significant qualification comes when he describes the work as ongoing research and acknowledges that more is needed. The topic is exploratory, not presented here as a demonstrated reversal of graying.

From there, the conversation moves to learning itself. Prof. Mike Chan says he has to learn from everyone and describes the reading behind his autism-related books. His account of reading hundreds of books is a statement about his process, not a clinical study establishing the effectiveness of a treatment.

“We continue to learn and add on into the dictionary,” he says.

This is one of the interview’s recurring themes. Earlier, he speaks of learning from each patient and each case. Later, he resists the idea that any individual can become a master of everything. Curiosity becomes a point of connection between the two doctors: professional identity is not presented as a completed education, but as something that can remain open to further discussion.

Giving, Affordability and the Values Behind the Work

The final part of Prof. Mike Chan’s contribution moves away from technical explanations and toward his stated motivation.

He says his work is not driven by money and describes a practice of providing free treatment to a disadvantaged child for every ten patients treated. This is his account of a charitable policy; the interview does not independently audit it. He expresses an ambition to make care accessible beyond a small group of people who can afford it easily.

“Everyone is equal irrespective of financial status,” he says.

The statement returns to a difficulty he acknowledged earlier, when discussing the cost and frequency of a proposed program. Affordability is not simply an abstract value in this conversation. It affects what a person can attend, how often they can return and what kind of plan is feasible.

Prof. Mike Chan also discusses his Buddhist beliefs and the value he places on giving rather than taking. These are personal convictions, not clinical claims. They help explain the language of care that Dr. Ahmet responded to in the earlier exchange.

The “love” Dr. Ahmet perceives is thus echoed in Prof. Mike Chan’s own account of what he believes should motivate his work: attention to others and a wish to widen access.

A Closing Built on Friendship and Professional Curiosity

By the end, the conversation has moved a considerable distance from its opening explanation of joints.

Derya’s closing words are about a relationship rather than a procedure. “He’s a long-term friend and family from now on,” she says of Prof. Mike Chan.

Dr. Ahmet takes a more professional direction. He says some of his patients have already begun receiving treatment and expresses a wish to share Prof. Mike Chan’s knowledge more widely. His remarks communicate an intention to continue the exchange, not a completed assessment of every claim made during it.

The two responses are different but complementary. Derya describes a personal bond; Dr. Ahmet describes an ongoing professional interest. Neither offers a documented recovery story. Their conclusion is about how the encounter has affected their regard for the person and the work they have encountered.

That is ultimately where this interview’s most coherent story rests. Ambitious medical ideas provide its subject, but the relationships around those ideas give it character. Derya remembers a fuller experience and a growing friendship. Dr. Ahmet notices professional discipline and a personal quality he describes as love. Prof. Mike Chan returns to the need to keep learning and his belief in wider access to care.

Dr. Ahmet’s “sword” and “love” comparison does not resolve those questions. It gives them a human setting. Behind the discussion of tissues and techniques are people trying to understand care, decide what matters to them and imagine what living well could mean.