Send us a text

Exploring the Spiritual Realm
Where spiritual belief meets health, culture, and skepticism

Disclaimer: This episode discusses spiritual and metaphysical beliefs that are not evidence-based medical treatments. Nothing in this conversation is medical or health advice. If you have a health concern, please seek care from a licensed clinician. This is entertainment only.

Recent surveys suggest around 69% of Americans say they believe in angels. Whatever you think of that, spiritual beliefs can shape real health decisions...what people trust, where they seek help, and how they make sense of illness.

In this episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks speaks with Dr. Christopher Macklin, a British-born spiritual teacher and interfaith minister, and founder of the Global Enlightenment Project. Christopher describes his lifelong spiritual experiences and his belief that he can work with “angels” and other non-physical beings in ways he says help people.

We talk about what he believes, how he differentiates between types of angels, what he means by “Melchizedek beings,” and why some followers view his work as healing. And because Dr. Eeks is a skeptic, we also talk about skepticism: how he responds to critics, how he thinks about proof, and where he draws lines around claims.

This episode is part of Eeks' broader exploration of the “spiritual” element of health—not as endorsement, but because spirituality influences how many people approach health and wellness, interpret symptoms, choose treatments, and build meaning around suffering. Think of it as part belief, part culture, part mystery.

Guest bio:

Dr. Christopher Macklin is a British-born spiritual teacher, interfaith minister, and founder of the Global Enlightenment Project. He describes having unusual spiritual perceptions since childhood and now offers spiritual guidance and sessions to clients internationally based on his personal beliefs about non-physical realms.

Work with me? Perhaps we are a good match.

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.

Follow Public Health is Weird

Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or TikTok.
SUBSCRIBE to her WEEKLY newsletter here!

Support the show

Send us a text

What if cancer didn’t have to be eradicated, but could be remembered, monitored, and controlled by the immune system itself?

In this episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks speaks with Dr. Zachary Hartman, the lead researcher who revisited an extraordinary breast cancer vaccine trial conducted over 20 years ago. The trial involved a small group of women with advanced breast cancer. Women who, remarkably, are all still alive today.

By analyzing their blood decades later, the research team discovered that these women still carried immune cells capable of recognizing their cancer, suggesting durable immune memory lasting more than two decades. (Study link here.)

We discuss:

• The original breast cancer vaccine trial and what it was designed to do, in plain language
• What it was like to discover that the women from the trial were still alive more than 20 years later
• How the immune systems of these women continued to recognize cancer cells long after the trial
• What CD27-positive immune cells are and why they matter, explained simply
• Why helper CD4 T cells may be just as important, or more important, than killer CD8 T cells when it comes to cancer
• What happened when researchers combined a CD27-boosting antibody with a cancer vaccine in mice
• What surprised the research team most
• The challenges of translating findings from mice to human trials
• Whether cancer could someday be managed long-term by the immune system
• How generalizable this immune memory might be across different cancers
• What this research could mean for how we think about vaccines in a post-pandemic world
• The one key message the researcher hopes the public takes away
• What’s next in this line of research

Guest Bio: Dr. Zachary C. Hartman is an Associate Professor at Duke University in the Departments of Surgery, Pathology, and Integrative Immunobiology, where he also serves as Director of the Center for Applied Therapeutics and is a member of the Cellular and Molecular Biology and Genetics and Genomics programs. He earned his undergraduate degree from Northwestern University and completed his PhD at Duke University, followed by postdoctoral training in tumor immunology and breast oncology at Duke and the MD Anderson Cancer Center. In 2012, Dr. Hartman returned to Duke to establish a research program focused on tumor immunology and the development of cancer immunotherapies, including therapeutic vaccines, immune agonists, checkpoint inhibitors, antibody-based therapies, and strategies to stimulate anti-tumor immune responses.

Work with Eeks ? Perhaps we are a good match.

Subscribe to Eeks' weekly newsetter

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.

Follow Public Health is Weird

Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or

Support the show

Send us a text

*Disclaimer* This episode is part of the Causes or Cures Public Health Is Weird bonus series and is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you’re worried about a child or pet eating a poinsettia, contact a medical professional or veterinarian. This podcast is not a poison control center. :)

Every December, poinsettias show up, and so does the panic.

Suddenly, a festive red plant is treated like antifreeze with leaves: dangerous to kids, deadly to pets, and one accidental nibble away from an emergency vet visit. But where did this fear actually come from, and does the evidence support it?

In this bonus episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks dives into one of the most persistent holiday health myths and asks a very public-health question: How did a weak claim turn into a century-long panic?

Using poison-control data, toxicology studies, veterinary evidence, and a little personal history (including a dog named Barnaby and the hazards of NYC sidewalks), this episode unpacks what poinsettias really do, and don’t do, to humans and animals.

In this episode, you’ll learn:

• Where the myth of the “deadly poinsettia” originated and why it stuck
• What large U.S. poison-control data shows about poinsettia exposures in children
• Why poinsettias behave very differently in real life than in our imaginations
• What toxicology studies in animals actually found (hint: no lethal effects)
• What the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center reports when pets chew on poinsettias
• Why dose and curiosity matter more than fear
• How risk is often exaggerated when kids, pets, and holidays collide
• Whether Dr. Eeks would let her own pets near a poinsettia (spoiler: probably not, but not for the reasons you think)
• A Christmas legend behind the poinsettia...and a gentle reminder that miracles don’t pause for plant anatomy

Public health takeaway:

Not everything we fear is dangerous. Sometimes fear does the exaggerating, not the risk.

Work with me? Perhaps we are a good match.

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.

Follow Public Health is Weird

Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or TikTok.
SUBSCRIBE to her WEEKLY newsletter here!

References:

All scientific references discussed in this episode are below and available on the accompanying blog post at BloomingWellness.com.

1. New York Botanical Garden Article: Dispelling a Seasonal Myth: For Humans, The Poinsettia is Not a Toxic Plant – Science Talk Archive
2. Krenzelok, E. P., Jacobsen, T. D., & Aronis, J. M. (1996). Poinsettia exposures have good outcomes… just as we thought. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 14(7), 671–674.
3. Evens, Z. N, & Stellpflug, S. J. (2012). Holiday Plants with Toxic Misconceptions. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Ca

Support the show

Send us a text

Microplastics are everywhere—but what are they doing inside the human body?

In this episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks speaks with Dr. Christian Pacher-Deutsch about his lastest study and the growing evidence that micro- and nanoplastics may affect the digestive system, the gut microbiome, and long-term health. He explains why this problem has reached crisis level.

Rather than focusing on dramatic claims or quick fixes, this conversation explores what the science actually shows, including how probiotics may help mitigate some of the harmful effects of microplastics...not by breaking them down, but by supporting gut integrity and immune balance.

We discuss:

• What microplastics and nanoplastics are, how they’re formed, and where human exposure comes from
• Why nanoplastics may be especially concerning due to their size and biological interactions
• The range of health effects microplastics have been linked to, including immune, neurological, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects
• How microplastics may disrupt the gastrointestinal tract, including digestion, inflammation, barrier function, and gut permeability
• What the microbiome is and why it plays a central role in health
• Why probiotics were considered as a potential solution, and what the research found
• Why probiotic bacteria are unlikely to directly degrade plastics
• How probiotics may still help reduce inflammation and support the gut’s protective barriers
• Whether certain bacteria appear more protective than others
• The role of industry collaboration and whether probiotic formulations are being explored
• Whether probiotics can realistically help us get ahead of the microplastic crisis, or if they are only part of a larger solution
• Practical ways people can reduce exposure, and where reduction may be unrealistic
• How diet, including probiotic- and prebiotic-rich foods, might help mitigate risk
• What this research changed about Dr. Pacher-Deutsch’s own habits
• What’s next in microplastics and health research

This episode offers a clear, evidence-based look at microplastics inside the human body—without panic, hype, or false promises.

GUEST BIO: Dr. Pacher-Deutsch is a scientist and researcher in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria; Center for Biomarker Research in Medicine (CBmed), Graz, Austria.

Work with me? Perhaps we are a good match.

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.

Follow Public Health is Weird

Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or TikTok.
SUBSCRIBE to her WEEKLY newsletter here!

Support the show

Send us a text

In this episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks speaks with Dr. Zohar Rubinstein, a clinical psychologist, researcher and trauma expert about an early and deeply sensitive study examining how different substances may have influenced early trauma responses among survivors of the October 7 Nova music festival attack.

Many survivors had taken substances just hours before the traumatic event — including classic psychedelics, MDMA, cannabis, alcohol, or none at all. Dr. Rubinstein’s team approached this research with extreme care, focusing on respect, consent, and the ethical challenges of studying trauma in real time.

Together, they discuss:

• Why Dr. Rubinstein became interested in studying trauma at the moment it happens, not years later
• How the research team worked respectfully with survivors in the aftermath of mass trauma
• The challenges of studying real-world substance use without lab-verified dosing
• Why survivors who had taken classic psychedelics reported lower anxiety and fewer early PTSD symptoms compared with other groups
• How timing and state of consciousness during trauma may influence how the brain encodes memory and fear
• What we can, and cannot, conclude from an early, observational study
• Why these findings do not justify self-experimentation, but may justify further controlled research
• What mental health professionals and policymakers should take away from this work
• How doing trauma research has shaped Dr. Rubinstein’s own understanding of resilience and healing

This conversation does not promote psychedelic substance use. Instead, it explores how brain state, context, and timing may shape trauma responses, and why studying these questions responsibly matters.

Content note: This episode discusses trauma related to the October 7 attacks. Listener discretion is advised.

Disclaimer: This episode is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical or mental health advice.

Dr. Zohar Rubinstein, PhD, is a clinical psychologist, trauma specialist, organizational psychologist and founder of the Morphic Institute. He is a founding member of the Interdisciplinary Master’s Program in Emergency and Disaster Management at the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University, where he lectures on trauma, resilience, and mental health in emergency settings. His research focuses on trauma, testimony, and resilience, including how individuals and societies process extreme events. Dr. Rubinstein developed an intensive short-term group intervention model for treating traumatic casualties and has led multidisciplinary research collaborations on trauma across psychology, history, and architecture.

Work with me? Perhaps we are a good match.

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.

Follow Public Health is Weird

Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or TikTok

Support the show

Send us a text

In this episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks talks with Dr. Claudia Suemoto in Brazil about her new 8-year study looking at whether artificial sweeteners are linked to changes in thinking and memory.

We cover:
• How she started studying dementia and why she became curious about sweeteners.
• What the research team hoped to learn and what they actually found.
• Why these results are different from older, one-time “snapshot” studies.
• Why the link between sweeteners and thinking problems showed up in people under 60, but not over 60.
• The seven sweeteners they studied and whether any looked more concerning than others.
• What a small decline on a cognition test really means in everyday life.
• Whether people who switch to sweeteners because of health issues make sweeteners look guilty.
• Whether there seems to be a “safe range” or if more sweetener means more risk.
• How to use studies like this when they show association, not proof.
• Easy ways to cut back on sweeteners without doubling your sugar.
• What policies she thinks make sense while we wait for more data.
• Her top tips for protecting your brain and lowering dementia risk.

If you want a clear, calm, evidence-based take on sweeteners and brain health, this episode is for you.

Guest Bio: Claudia Suemoto, MD, PhD, is a geriatrician and researcher at the University of São Paulo whose work centers on successful brain aging, dementia, and the cardiovascular risks that shape both. She runs the Suemoto Lab, directs the Biobank for Aging Studies, contributes to the major ELSA-Brazil cohort, and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Suemoto has been recognized with major awards, including the L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science honor and the Ewald W. Busse Research Award for her contributions to aging biology. She also serves in leadership roles with ISTAART and the Brazilian Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology.

Work with me? Perhaps we are a good match.

Follow Public Health is Weird

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.
Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or TikTok.
SUBSCRIBE to her WEEKLY newsletter here! (Now featuring interviews with top experts on health you care about!)

Support the show

Send us a text

In this episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks talks with Dr. Jaap de Roode, an evolutionary biologist and author of Doctors by Nature: How Ants, Apes, and Other Animals Heal Themselves, about one of the most fascinating corners of biology: the ways animals use plants, minerals, insects, and even toxins as medicine.

They talk about:

• What sparked his interest in animals treating their own illnesses
• Why medicine isn’t only a human invention
• How scientists tell the difference between random behavior and true self-medication
• His favorite examples of animal doctors in the wild
• Whether animals know they’re taking medicine or if it’s instinct or trial-and-error
• The weirdest substances animals use to heal themselves
• What traditional healers who observed animals for years and years could teach us ,and what we ourselves could learn from observing this type of animal behavior.
• Whether animal self-medication could lead to new drugs or therapies
• The risks of over-romanticizing “nature knows best”
• The scientific challenges in proving an animal is self-medicating
• How seeing animals as medicine-users might change how we respect their lives and value their habitats
• And the big question: Who is the best doctor in the animal kingdom?

If you love animals, nature, weird science, evolutionary biology, or the idea that your pet might actually be a doctor or furry-little pharmacist, you’ll love this episode.

Dr. Jaap de Roode runs a research lab at Emory University focused on how hosts and parasites co-evolve, from monarch butterflies to honey bees. He also leads science outreach, directs the Infectious Diseases Across Scales training program, and hosts the Virulent Vortex podcast. You can learn more about him and his research here.

Work with me? Perhaps we are a good match.

Follow Public Health is Weird

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.
Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or TikTok.
SUBSCRIBE to her WEEKLY newsletter here! (Now featuring interviews with top experts on health you care about!)

Support the show

Send us a text

Episode: Why Single Women Are Happier than Single Men, with Elaine Hoan
Guest: Elaine Hoan, PhD Candidate, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto

Forget the “sad cat lady” cliché. In this episode, Dr. Eeks chats with researcher Elaine Hoan about her new study showing that single women are, on average, happier than single men. They explore what that says about modern love, independence, and the pressure to couple up.

In this episode:

• What sparked Elaine’s interest in studying singlehood and well-being
• How she actually measured happiness, satisfaction, and sex without making it weird
• Why women report more contentment and autonomy in singlehood
• What traditional masculinity has to do with men’s lower happiness scores
• How cultural expectations shape who thrives alone
• Whether singlehood could use a total rebrand
• And the advice Elaine gives to anyone feeling the “you should be partnered” pressure

Read Elaine's full study here and check out her and her team's lab here.

Elaine Hoan is a PhD researcher in Experimental Psychology at the University of Toronto where she uses surveys and various statistical models to examine the lives of single and partnered individuals. She studies the broad question of who is more likely to be happy single or in a romantic relationship.

Work with me? Perhaps we are a good match.

Follow Public Health is Weird

You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.
Follow Eeks on Instagram here.
Or Facebook here.
Or X.
On Youtube.
Or TikTok.
SUBSCRIBE to her WEEKLY newsletter here! (Now featuring interviews with top experts on health you care about!)

Support the show