All right, Nick Pineault, welcome back to the QVC

podcast.

Thanks for having me.

It's my pleasure. And I'm really excited to talk

to you because I've really been wanting to talk

to someone about what's going on in the United

States in terms of the Health and Human Services

situation. I know that you have interviewed

Robert F. Kennedy and are following that very

closely. So I'm like, perfect. I can talk to Nick

about it. I think we're good people to talk about

this because we're both Canadian, so we didn't

vote no.

Exactly.

We are just here to talk about what the current

situation is. So how. How that happened and what

your politics are, I think are sort of beside the

point. If you know our audience, really, their

fundamental priority is, is health and wellness

and taking care of the human energy system in all

the ways that matter. And I think Robert F.

Kennedy being confirmed, like, I have a hard time

even saying it because it seemed so impossible

even just six months ago, being confirmed as the

Director of Secretary of Health and Human

Services for the federal government in the United

States. Could you just speak to the monumental

moment that this represents and also what you

think could be possible with someone like rfk, or

not even someone like rfk, because there's no one

else like him. Like, there's really no one else

in the world with that level of understanding and

experience. So I'd love your thoughts.

Well, that's, in fact, one of the most exciting

questions I've received in the last. In the last

years in interviews, because things are very

exciting. So there's a lot of possibility there.

Of course, RFK Jr. First is an environmental

attorney who fought and won against many

industries that have been found to poison people

or to hide the fact that they were poisoning

people. So industries that really kind of engage

in this sort of savage or dangerous form of

capitalism where, okay, we're here to make money

and, oh, if we get caught, we're going to pay a

little bit, a few millions in compensation, but

it's still worth it, right? So we have dupont, we

have Monsanto, and pretty much the most evil

companies. And that's not, you know, something

religious. It's more. It's even something that

in. In science magazines has been like, they had

a chart of the most evil companies in the world,

and Monsanto was up there because they deny.

They. They use all this, the tactics to try to

change scientific opinions and try to minimize

the problem. And yet we know what they're doing.

And then, of course, it take decades before we

can finally see justice. The same is happening

with telecoms to some extent because of the

denial that's been installed in the industry

since the 1990s, when the first controversies

around cell phones and potential brain tumors

were seen, especially that one Larry King

interview. I cannot recall the year, but it was.

It was a big moment in mainstream media in the

U.S. and after that, the industry really decided

to systematically quit. All the era. The efforts

that had been put to try to work with scientists

and with government to try to make sense of cell

phone safety and how to put, you know, safety

guardrails. They abandoned all that and they

decided to say no instead. What we're going to

say is, there's no effect whatsoever. Everything

is safe. So they decided on a message that is

essentially like, you know, those tobacco

executives that have a hand on the Bible and that

say, oh, no, you know, there's no damage from

smoking, there's nothing there. And nicotine, by

the way, is not addictive. So is the equivalent.

They decided on a PR message that is, of course,

completely fabric. Complete fabrication, a

complete lie. And that's. We're still going

through the consequences of that. When we have an

attorney like RFK Jr that has fought and won

against other corporate giants, and he has also

fought and won against the fcc, the Federal

Communication Commission in the US that's

supposed to regulate the industry of wireless and

wireless safety. But what they're really doing is

they're so completely captured by these interests

that all they're doing is helping telecoms buy

spectrum, which is, you know, you're buying the

right to emit at a certain frequency with your

towers and with your wireless infrastructure. So

they're really more like helping industry roll

out new technologies. So how can they both be

supposed to stop the industry from rolling out

5G, for example, the fifth generation of cell

towers, and also enable 5G. So it's kind of the

wrong organization at this point to determine

health, and we're in a very, very bad spot. But

the reality is that there's lawsuits against the

industry at many levels. RFK Jr. Was representing

many of these lawsuits. In fact, he told me many

dozens of lawsuits that we don't hear about

because they're not publicized. All right?

There's no media attention around them, around

people who claim they've had all sorts of

different tumors because of their phone. And this

is not an isolated incident. You have other

countries where there has been decisions in favor

of cell phone users that have had massive

compensation. In Italy, there are a few cases,

for example, but it's tough because even judges,

I think, and most people representing the law are

in this belief that this could be true. So

there's, you know, on a societal level, if

everyone thinks this is crazy talk and there's no

effect, it will convince the entire like all

levels of government and policymakers and even

lawmakers that there's no issue. So how can

someone claim that their cell phone caused a

tumor for example? Right. So the moment is huge

because now you have RFK Jr. Head of HHS in the

United States. HHS Health and Human Services is

at the top of overlooking the fda. The FDA is

consumer products. Cell phones fell under

consumer products for a while and then they

didn't know what to do about it. So they send

that to ntp. NTP is also part of, you know, under

hhs. NTP is the National Toxicology Program. And

they did cell phone studies, they did find

effects. It was published in 2018. And then all

of a sudden all the follow up studies to these

rat studies that showed that cell phone radiation

can be a carcinogen were abandoned quietly. We

don't know why to this day. But they think it's a

lot of industry pressure and systematic kind of,

you know, the industry trying to do all sorts of

shenanigans to prevent the real independent

scientists that have citizens health in mind to

do their job. And then there's also the FCC that

is under hhs. So now will we see a change in who

is chosen at the FCC as the head of fcc? That

would be a nice first step and something that RFK

Jr told me in the, in, in the interview that's

going to be part of the bonuses for the 2025 EMF

Hazard Summit is that he would literally look at

the top half of all FCC employee and let them go.

So there's a bit cleanup that needs to happen

because in his mind if the FCC in the end we

decide, okay, let's, let's make sure the FCC does

its job when it comes to health. We have to let

go of a culture of no effect. And a culture of

this is, you know, tinfoil hatter stuff. This is

not serious and we don't want to study it and

it's not our job. And we, it's perfectly fine to

have the heads of the FCC always be ex telecom

executives or ex CTIA executive, which is the

lobbying group for the telecom industry. So I

would say for the first time we have a politician

that in his first day at HHS said we're going to

study the impact of certain Childhood injections,

I'll say it that way. So there's that, that

controversy over that. There's a controversy over

pesticides, there's a controversy over fluoride

and water and all sorts of things that could be

behind the chronic disease epidemic. But he also

mentioned, the second item he mentioned is

electromagnetic radiation. So on a public

awareness standpoint, it could be massive. And I

was talking with someone else, another interview

I did right before this recording, and you know,

the person said, I, I don't know if RFK Jr. Is

going to change everything. And the reality is

maybe it won't, but the possibility is there. It

doesn't mean we should change course, stop

spreading awareness. Maybe the change is going to

not come in four years. Maybe it's going to take

still 24 years. I have no idea, to tell you the

truth. But the possibility is there. And at least

we have a politician for the first time that has

litigated for EMFs, knows that it's unsafe and

knows that the safety limits need to change. Will

it change? We'll see. But in the meantime, you

know, I'm just still waking up every day. I'm

doing my work for the moment. You know, I cannot

retire.

Absolutely. And I would argue that this is the

moment to double down. This is the moment for us

all to, to spread the message more clearly and

louder because we have this opening and who

knows, perhaps the embedded nature of all of

these different organizations that make decisions

that end up affecting our lives, like the

companies are, the agencies are captured by the

companies and the, the people are going back and

forth from company to government and back again.

And so nobody has any accountability and nobody

has any liability. So, yes, he has. It's

definitely a, you know, a big mess to untangle,

but the fact that the will is there and that it's

being acknowledged, because to your point, their

strategy so far has to been to just completely

deny there's even a problem. Yes.

Yeah.

And. And I think that's why some people, you

know, feel so strongly that RFK is crazy. Right.

And I watched the commentary on him very closely

during the confirmation hearing, and I could not

find one person who hated him, who had any

understanding of the issues that he represented.

Like, and so it's like he's so far down the

rabbit hole, as you were saying, he sees all of

these cases, so he sees all of the evidence, and

he's, he lives and breathes that every day and

comes to conclusions and then says those

conclusions to a public that's been told that

there's no problem. So, of course he sounds

crazy, but it's because he has all the context

and the public has none.

I agree with you. And someone who put it in the

best way possible, I have to give him credit, is

Brett Weinstein from the Dark Horse podcast. I. I

love that podcast. He's a deep thinker, but it's

also ironic. I'll tell you why in a second. But I

think he said that you have early. You have

people that are sort of alarm sounders, that are

kind of 30 years before their time, and they.

They have a position that is informed, that is

not just, you know, their gut feeling or

anything. I'm included in that. But of course,

before me, there were people in the 1980s that I

know that were already saying, you know, power

lines that we install that are these huge lines

of electricity. We have to be careful because if

we live too close to them, we're going to have

massive problems based on what we understand of

biology. Everyone was kind of scoffing at that.

What are you talking about? Electricity. I mean,

electricity is safe as long as you don't, you

know, shock yourself to death. And now we're

starting to see, yes, it was a problem, but it

was a small problem compared to all the other

problems we're creating with modern tech so close

to our body, cell towers, et cetera. And these

early adopters have a position that sounds so

crazy because it is so far from what the average

layperson knows and even the average, you know,

intellectual or academic thinks or knows for

sure. But yet that's. That's kind of their gut

feeling and uninformed position. For example, you

would have. The academic. Most people would think

that cell phones are completely safe. They. They

think, well, it's been studied. There's no

effect. And they read the cancer society website.

It says the same thing. Okay. It confirms my

understanding. And then I read who. Oh, there's

no effect. Cool. Thank God there's no effect. I

read the fcc. Thank God, there's no effect. So

they've been convinced their entire life that

there's no effect. So when they're presented with

evidence, it sounds so big, it sounds so shocking

that it couldn't possibly be true. And that's

what the point of Bret Weinstein was when he gets

into new topics, like something that he learned

about in the last several years was the impact of

blue light. It couldn't be that we rolled out all

these screens and yet were destroying the health

of the population to some degree at least, or to

some would say a Large degree, at least in a

quantum biology field, because the screens emit

all the wrong frequencies. And no one took care

of making sure that at least the spectrum is

balanced, that we try to minimize these risks.

And essentially this is a big experiment. And he

was shocked when he realized, my God, yes, blue

light is a big problem. Because he talks about

hypernovelty. He's a evolutionary biologist, so

he says, well, this is new. Our mitochondria are

not used to this artificial light. Our cells is

not used to this artificial light. But the thing

is where Brett Weinstein falls short and I think,

I apologize to Brett if he knows, but I don't

think he's aware, that invisible light, right,

this part of the EMF spectrum that communicates

with each other, the cell towers and your phone

and wi Fi and Bluetooth. This radio frequency

radiation also has the same characteristics. It's

hypernovel. We have levels right now of exposure

that is a quintillion times the ancestral

background levels. So that's 10 to the 18th or a

billion times a billion. That's the increase of

radio frequency radiation in the last hundred

years. So the average. And that's not a peak

exposure level from your phone, that's background

level in a city around 0.2 volts per meter. So

the reality is that we have a new agent. It's

tremendously higher, so, so much higher than back

in three, four generations ago that we cannot

even understand the number. There's too many

zeros. So there's that. And then we have the

position in society. Everyone keeps repeating,

everything is safe. And yet when you look into

it, if, if Brett Weinstein looked into it, he

would say, my God, the safety studies are shoddy.

This is very bad science from the get go. The

standards are based on adults, short term

exposure. So where are the standards for kids?

Like if we have kids that use the technology?

Makes no sense. So it makes so little sense when

you start looking into it that just like me, just

like I did in 2016 when I dove into it, it makes

no sense. It's almost impossible to fathom that

it could be that bad. And yet it is.

Yeah, and it is. And it's also, as you were

talking about the, the exposure times

quintillion, you know, I was thinking how

resilient the human body is that you know, our

biology, the fact that we're not even sicker than

we are is amazing considering what we've. We're

asking our biology to deal with on a day to day

basis. And you're talking about the safety

studies. So it's looking at adults, short term

exposure and in reality we have children,

including in some cases infants with long term

exposure. I mean my children go to public school,

they are in a WI fi environment all day long. And

so we have it turned off in our house on a timer

and we have no WI fi in our house when they're

sleeping. But that's not short term exposure. And

are they even looking at WI fi or are they just

looking at cell phones? Because then you know,

you're in a classroom and well, depending what

grade you're in. But for sure in middle and high

school every child in that room has a phone

turned on, probably Bluetooth and WI fi and data

like that is, that is not short term exposure,

that is prolonged daily exposure to, to

developing bodies and minds.

Exactly. And we have. So basically the very

foundation of EMF wireless safety relies on short

term experiments. 40 to 60 minute of exposures,

if I recall correctly, to five monkeys and eight

rats. That's in a paper published in, by a group

called ICB, EMF. And Dr. Paul Hirou, who's in a,

in the Summit, he's from McGill University, he's

a professor of, he has a background in biology

and electrical engineering. So that's why he got

it, that's why he understood that when he was

mandated by Hydro Quebec, a utility company for

electricity that is owned by the state here in

Quebec in Canada, when he was asked to look at

the potential health impacts of power lines on

citizens and whether they should build these

power lines close to people's home or in even in

certain cases they wanted to have the power lines

over people's homes. So you're right underneath

and you're exposed to massive levels of

electricity in the form of a magnetic field that

is always present. So you're living in this,

let's say electricity bubble. And he found health

impacts. That's why he eventually lost his job.

Of course that's kind of what happens to honest

scientists these days in many industries or when

your finding goes against industry. But basically

what he said is that look, these are fantasies or

he called them fairy tales that the industry is

saying about safety. The initial studies were bad

enough that it should have never been rolled out.

This technology or at least the pre market

studying should have taken 10 years. But how can

you stop this technological boom? It was part of

the, the dot com Internet boom. And then towards

the 90s and the early 2000s it was like it was

almost a sort of unstoppable force. So who Are

you to stop this? Great technological advances

and things went very, very fast. And of course in

the midst of all this we still rely on safety

standards that are not even appropriate for

adults. But based on, on a mannequin head that is

the equivalent of a six foot two men, 220 pounds.

So maybe it's hard to tell, but I'm not six foot,

I'm five, four. I'm a small guy, you know, I'm

like the smaller population. So even those

standards are not even appropriate for my brain.

So if I use a phone to my head, I'm even going

over the limit that has been determined in safety

testing. So it makes so little sense on so many

level that it's hard to fathom. But then of

course you have certain engineers that said,

well, what happens if you have a 10 year old?

Well, the 10 year old has a different type of

head, it's smaller than mine, I can tell you

that. And then not only that, but the smaller

children are, the more water content they have in

their body, so they absorb more of this

radiation. So in fact in some studies they, their

spinal Cord will absorb 10 times more radiation

than adults just because of the morphology. And

then their brain will absorb 150 to 200% so

almost twice as much compared to adults. So none

of the safety standards take that into account.

But that's just for phones, right? We have no

safety standards that look at cumulative

exposures from all the sources you mentioned wi

fi in school and then another device that's maybe

in a pocket and maybe I have a Apple watch or

other wireless thing here and I have AirPods on

every day and then I go back home and the phone

is on under my pillow and all this cumulative

exposure, there's big radio silence on it because

again, everything that's being repeated is,

everything is safe. Everything is safe. Not, not

of this matter. Like we don't need the studies

about cumulative exposure because a cumulative

exposure to something that is harmless doesn't

need to be measured. Right? That's right. That's

the.

Why would we study cumulative exposure when the,

when it's completely harmless? It's like how many

breaths did you take today? Exactly. Breathing's

harmless.

Exactly, exactly.

Because it's the other piece that is so tricky

about the non native EMF situation is that, you

know, if I want my family to eat a certain type

of food that's within my control, you know, if I

want to say no to certain big pharma products and

make, you know, have informed consent on all the

you know, when I have to make a medical decision,

especially involving taking drugs or injections,

like that's still relatively within my control.

But as we've been talking about the non native

EMFs, that is like a society level problem. And

aside from having what happens inside my own

home, it just, and this is, it just is so, it's

so daunting, right, to acknowledge the level of

harm that is happening. But at the same time it

is something that we literally can't do anything

about outside of our homes. And even then we're

still depending where our house is located, we

might still be picking up other stuff. And so

that's why I wanted to come back to RFK for a

minute. You know, like I'm just a big proponent

of light, of build the life you want to live,

create the future you want to live in, surround

yourself with people on the same page and like,

who cares what everyone else is doing? But this

has, you know, on a spiritual level, challenging

that approach because we cannot change this

without acknowledging the larger society system

that we live in. And so I just to have someone in

charge who sees that I hope is going to be able

to have a cascading effect on some of this

because it seems to me that as long as the people

in charge have a vested interest in lying to us

about the effects of technology on our bodies,

we're kind of screwed.

Yeah, we are, we are in a sense. So let's think

about this thing, this entire problem in two

different categories. One of them, and let's use

the example of massive use of pesticides, there's

a worldwide problem with pesticide use. We are

destroying species, ecosystems, plants, humans,

everything. We're, you know, dumping I don't know

how many billions of tons of pesticides

everywhere every year. So there's a global

problem we need to think about. And even if you

decide to read Consumer Reports or whatever blog

and you discover, oh my God, there's a ton of

pesticides in my Cheerios glyphosate, so

therefore I will stop eating Cheerios. You're

doing great. You're doing great for consumer

awareness in a sense that if Cheerios loses

market shares, maybe they're going to clean their

act and make sure that throughout their supply

chain everything will be pesticide free. Or

maybe, you know, rely on other sources for their

oats and wheat and whatever ingredients they have

on there. And then of course you're going to have

fewer pesticides in your body. So that's good.

But there's a global problem of pesticides and

there's individual problem of pesticides. The

individual problem of pesticides is okay. What do

I feed my family? What do I feed myself with?

Emfs is the same. You have the global problem you

have there. I mean, it's daunting on me. The

moment I wake up, I have to. I kind of, I think

I'm able to survive in this space because I'm an

eternal optimist. I think things like, I kind of

still believe in fairy tales and I wake up in the

morning and oh, I feel like, you know, EMF

awareness is gonna explode. And it's so nice in

reality, we're really moving in the wrong

direction and we're installing all, all sorts of

satellites around the earth. And now there's

massive problems. The satellites are beaming down

on us. What is it doing, Nick? I get emails,

people very concerned. Should I go outside? Even

someone told me, well, you know, there's

widespread pollution of the air. There's the

satellites now that are blasting me, and there's

this little park in my city. Should I go outside

or stay inside? And I'm like, oh my God. I mean,

this is first. We don't know. But we cannot stop

going outside. That's, that's the crazy part of

it, right? We cannot stop having sunshine and

earthing and, you know, all these things that on

a quantum health level are kind of the

foundations. You still need to get outside and

get natural frequencies. And the irony is, I

think that the more natural frequencies you have

and your body reads this information is going to

help you cope with the chaos out there. That is

the bad information in the environment. So I

would say continue, by all means, continue. Go

outside and go by how you feel. Do you feel

better outside? I do. I still do. Even in

Montreal, even in a city. And I know if I go to a

park, even if that park has been sprayed with

pesticides, turns out I feel even better than in

my home. So somehow, you know, there's good

things that are coming out of it. So global

problem of emf, daunting. We can talk about it in

a political level, policy level, where to place

the towers. We should know. We should roll out

5G. We shouldn't roll out 5G. What to do about

your neighbors and how to change all of society.

But if I tell a parent, that's how, that's what

you have to think about tonight at 7pm after a

kids go to bed, they're going to freak out.

They're going to say, well, my God, I cannot

think about that. Like how Things are going to

change, but it's going to take a lot of time.

Then you have your individual EMF exposure that

you do have, I'd say a decent amount of control

over. Right, because you decide like you as an

adult, not your kids, that's another part of the

discussion. But you as an adult, you can control

what you expose yourself to. If you want to use

technology, there are safer ways to use it. You

can use wires instead of wireless. You can create

distance between the devices and your body. You

can minimize your time of use. And then if you

have control over your kids exposures because

they're younger, then of course you should do it.

And you should try to learn more tips that we

share in the summit, for example, or you know,

just trying to use more ethernet cables. Try to

minimize the time of exposure. Like you said,

turning off the WI fi at night is a great step

because it doesn't interfere with anyone's

business. And yet you are cutting down exposure

for a good seven to eight hours. So right there

you are cutting down how much of this stress

you're getting. Just like if you are cleaning up

your diet. And you know these Cheerios have

pesticides because I read Consumer Reports, I

know better. So now we've switched to an organic

brand and that's a pesticide free brand. But then

you come across an apple that your husband

purchased at the grocery store. Oh no, it's not

organic. There's 50 types of pesticide residue on

there. What do I do? I'm hungry. Well, maybe you

eat apple, right, but so you are still exposed to

some stuff. But maybe then you tell your husband,

okay, well you know what, apples should be

purchased organic from now on and we'll see if

our budget allows it. So all this negotiation

needs to happen with EMFs. It's not either you're

super exposed or unexposed. There's nuances in

there and you have to think about all the

different sources you're exposed to, focusing on

which you have control over and which are you

exposed for not a few minutes here and there, but

hours every day. So for a lot of people it would

be their phone, laptop, workstation, WI fi router

in the home. For a lot of parents and towards

their kids exposure, it will be the tablet that

they hand them or smartphone that they hand them.

And there are a lot of ways that they can

minimize the amount of radiation that this body

is subjected to at a close range. That's really

the key to dangers that are identified in the, in

the medical research is yes, the cell phone

towers have an impact. I cannot tell you. They

don't have an impact. But what are you to do

about it, right? It's, it's difficult, it's a

long term battle. The short term battle is, let's

say you hand your kid a tablet or let me give an

example from you know, we took a trip last

summer, it was to the Outer Banks, we left

Montreal. It took way too many hours of driving,

I cannot recall if it was like 14 or maybe 16

hours. And stopping at many different types of

convenience stores to go to the bathroom and buy

snacks. And it was like a never ending trip. Of

course I used a tablet. But what did I do prior

to that trip? I connected the tablet. I use an

ethernet cable, but you could use WI fi, there's

really no difference. You leave it in the corner

where no one is exposed and, and you pre download

all the movies you can, you pre download series,

you pre download games that can be played

offline. You can, even if you use Spotify or

other music apps, most of them allow you to pre

download playlists. In fact on Spotify, even on

the average tablet nowadays you could have

thousands of songs pre downloaded so much that

Even during these 16 hours to go and 16 hours to

come back, you would still be able to listen to

unique songs and never repeat it, repeat a single

song twice. So it's just an example of, you know,

a simple, almost stupid, stupidly simple habit

that would make all the difference because

instead of streaming all this content for 32

hours where you would be connected to a 4G tower

and the tablet in front of you, kid in the car

would be emitting, emitting, emitting. And

throughout the car, the car is metal on top of

that, it would be bouncing everywhere and

everyone would feel probably more fatigued, more

stress, more oxidative, oxidative stress. So

lower antioxidant, everyone would be, would feel

more stressed overall. That's, this is really

what it's doing to your biology. Instead of that

you have none, zero exposure from that tablet for

two to 32 hours. So it's just a change, a slight

change of habit that makes you say okay, well you

know, it's, I could do that, right? That, that's

how I want parents to feel. Focus on the things

that you, that make you say, okay, I could do

that. And I will not ask the average parent to

please find a way to stop the satellites from

going in the sky, right? Take a rocket ship and

bring them down. I mean it really, that's what

people seem to be focused on, when in reality,

they should focus on their immediate surroundings.

And focusing on that does make a difference.

It does.

Yeah. It's like getting sunshine. Even, you know,

five minutes is better than no minutes. Every

little help. So what I'm hearing you say is that

any way that we can find to mitigate our

exposure, especially by the things that are

closest to our bodies, is going to be helpful.

Even though there are larger issues that we don't

have control over, the things that we do have

control over are going to make a difference. And

so it's like that. That balance of having enough

awareness of the true dangers to being willing to

make even small changes without getting

overwhelmed and feeling defeated and depressed,

for sure.

And just focusing on areas that really matter. So

here's another example I get from concerned

parents. I have a trip coming up, and I'm going

to bring a tablet, and I have no idea how to turn

off the WI fi in a hotel room. We're going to be

staying there one night. And my answer is. This

is. Well, you know, maybe you can overstress over

these details, but I feel like maybe you should

start looking into where is the WI fi router in

your Airbnb apartment You're going to be renting

for two weeks. Right. That would matter more than

the one night in the hotel room. And if the

Airbnb apartment. Oh, I don't. I cannot even find

that router. I have no access to it. Forget about

it. Like, literally ignore it. Try to live your

life. But back home, when this is not your two

weeks of vacation, it's your 50 weeks of living

with your kids and husband and family. Do

something about the WI fi. Maybe you turn it off

when not in use, or maybe you turn off WI fi

permanently, like I did, and use Ethernet cables

to connect your devices. Whatever you choose to

do, this is where you can have the biggest

impact. So, again, it's the same framework as

food, toxins, or even diet overall, if you are

extremely concerned. Oh, Nick, you know, in 1994,

I had a sundae with pasteurized milk and cheap

ice cream and corn syrup on it. Like, how much of

an impact is it having on my epigenetics? I don't

know, but it's in the past, and now you can do

better. And if you want to have a Sunday once per

year, I have a hard time believing that this will

make or break your health. Except, of course, if

you're deadly allergic to certain ingredients or

your body is in very poor health and you have no

resilience of course you know what you're able to

handle. But the reality is that your food

decisions are, you know, over a thousand meals

per year. If you have three per day, focus on the

999 and not the one. Right? So we have, instead

of being neurotic, we have to be practical about

it. And I know it is overwhelming. It is

overwhelming because of the shock that people

feel when they discover EMFs. It is overwhelming,

I would say because of some of the marketing

online that is like, oh, 5G will destroy you.

You're in trouble. And sometimes I want to talk

this way, but I try to just keep it reasonable. I

am concerned over satellites. I am concerned

over, over 5G. I am concerned about new devices

that are stronger and even more disruptive. But

the message always remains the same. It's really

to kind of take a deep breath, try to do your

best and at least don't act or don't believe that

this is a non issue. That would be my problem if

you tell me, oh no, no, it's perfectly safe. I

read who and I read the Cancer Society and I read

the fcc. I would say, well, good luck. But I beg

to differ. Try to minimize exposure. And what

people feel after just minimizing One source of

EMFs is sometimes is surprising. I had this quick

anecdote. I rent cars at, I used to rent car at

Avis manufacturer here in Montreal. And I talked

with Claudi, who is the clerk there and I told

her about my work and of course we start talking

as the months go by. And she said, oh, you know

what you told me about EMFs, you know, and

turning off phone at night. I didn't tell my

husband, but I turned off our phones at night for

a few nights. And the first night is the first

night my husband slept through the night without

having to go and pee in the middle of the night.

It's the first time in 20 years, something like

that. And I'm like, oh my God. And they didn't

change their neighbors habits. They live in a

city so they are exposed to all sorts of things.

So imagine this is the impact from two phones in

your bedroom. The reality is that your body will

accommodate for these exposures and try to find

what is the best sleep I can get given these

exposures. If you remove the exposures, it might

find a new situation that is even more

advantageous for your biology. Okay, well now we

have to kind of modify brain wave patterns and

we're going to slightly tweak things and how

neurotransmitters are emitted and how melatonin

and your biology is going to change very rapidly

within one night. It's going to find, okay, what

is the best situation now? I'm sensing the

environment. It's kind of a little bit calmer.

We're going to try to get deeper tonight. And

turns out they had better sleep. Deeper sleep. So

the reality is that you can get benefits. And

this is what gives me hope is the confirmation

that when you turn off only a few sources, some

people start feeling better. It is an indication

for me that you can get benefits. No matter the

overwhelm around you and these external factors,

you can get benefits when you minimize your own

exposures. And that's, that's good news in a

sense in a, in a topic that is very daunting. You

can make a difference and it does make a

difference even each time you take these small

decisions.

Yes, absolutely. And I, I love the way that you

deliver this message because being a hyper purist

extremist is, is stressful long term. And it also

makes people not want to listen because they're

like, well, I'm not doing all those crazy things

you do. Right. So what I see happen with people

with myself and all the people that, whose

stories I hear and people I work with. Right.

It's like when you're integrating new habits and

new changes. Yes. You are going to be hyper

focused on that issue for a period of time.

Whether it's aligning your circadian rhythms or

lowering your, mitigating your EMF or figuring

out how to feed your family, it will require

extra attention. But once it's integrated as a,

as a normal habit, it's okay to relax and enjoy

life and be optimistic. Speaking of things that

we have control over, something that I wanted to

talk to you about that I think is just such low

hanging fruit in terms of what industry could

potentially maybe I would prefer, I would like

them to be outlawed but you know, have some put

out some information on to warn people is EarPods.

AirPods. Oh yes. Oh yeah.

So talk to me about EarPods because they, you

know, they're small, they go in your ear like

right. Like as close to your brain as possible.

Like they seem to be breaking every rule you've

just outlined. They in terms of how to mitigate

emf and all the kids use them. My kids show up

places with their wired, their wired things and

people are like, oh, you guys too cool for

earbuds? You're going retro. And they're like no,

we want EarPods. Our mom won't let us.

Yeah, yeah, well, it would almost be cooler to

say, oh yeah, I'm going like super retro and

have, I don't know, old Walkman, you know,

yellow, yellow Walkman, like wired headset just

for the sake of it. But you know, the difficulty

is that I tried two years ago, my Bose QC35 I

think is the model wired earbuds like these that

are very nice and they have like a feature where

you have, you have a button and you have a noise

canceling function that I like, especially on

airplanes or if you're in loud environments. It's

pretty nice. But these have been completely

discontinued years ago and I had to purchase

these knockoffs, which I realized is probably

not, I think I got sold like a scam because they

don't sound the same. But it was on ebay, so of

course I was kind of asking for it and they were

very cheap. So they were straight from China.

They do the job. But all that to say that society

is moving in a direction where it's tough to find

wired solutions. So I'll give you that it's tough

Even, you know, the average people that don't

have a ton of money would be tempted to go with

wireless earbuds and just to record a video on my

Instagram. I wanted to purchase AirPods to show

them, to show people not to use them. But I found

that an expensive marketing expenses because it

was like two, three hundred dollars. So I went on

Amazon and said, okay, what kind of alternatives

are there for like AirPods? You can find some for

like 29.99 or $40 USD. So very, very cheap. So

all that to say that even kids that are not

necessarily part of a wealthy family or have a

lot of money will be able to have these Bluetooth

earbuds in their ears for extended periods of

time, for hours on end. So of course they're to

be avoided. Now a lot of people will kind of

laugh at that statement, like, okay, well it's

cool that you tell me that, but my kids will not

listen to me, especially if they're older

teenagers. And let's say I completely understand

if the battle is so much that it's going to

disconnect you from your kid, then it becomes a

big issue. Like it cannot be a fight where it

puts you in, it puts your relationship in

jeopardy. So what can you do? Well, there are

some solutions that can be installed on the

AirPod to block 90% of the radiation. That's

called wave block. It has merits, but again is

reducing the problem by 90%, sufficient to assure

safety. We don't, we don't have an answer. We

don't even know. What is the safe level of

wireless exposure right next to the brain? For

all I know, it could be close to zero, which is,

you know, the equivalent of what happened with

certain very toxic substances like lead, for

example, a heavy metal. At one point, lead

exposure was thought to be, you know, slightly

dangerous. Eventually it was very dangerous.

Eventually it was extremely dangerous. And now

even, you know, everyone is kind of admitting,

well, the safe level is zero, right? Ideally. And

we don't have zero. In fact, I found I have

massive levels of lead in my body somehow,

because I don't even know where that's coming

from. But all that to say that, you know, the

more we're going to research this technology and

the more concerning the results will be. I have

no doubt about that. So reducing time of use

might be a strategy to use. So for example, if

your teenagers or kids are still use them behind

your back and they want to use them, at least you

can say, well, when you're home, you use the

wired solutions. That's something. So maybe when

they're home, you know, it might be 12 hours per

day they use the wires or when you're studying,

you're in one place, you're at your office,

you're at your computer, just have a different

pair that is wired at the computer. Why would you

use wireless if you're not, you know, doing a

workout or dancing or moving around? Right. So it

makes no sense to have wireless in these

situations. So try to have, you know, minimize

time of use and try to minimize, help them

minimize their use as much as possible. That's

what I would say. And of course we don't know

what it's doing. But for certain teenagers and

younger patients, from some of the doctors I

interviewed in a summit, they realized that they

had massive problems with airpods in particular,

where they had weird sensations on the skin that

lasted for several days after wearing them. And

for some of them it's tinnitus. They have a

ringing in one ear or even I heard about a

reduction in hearing quality or hearing loss,

partial hearing loss from radio frequency

radiation. It's plausible that it could be

happening. It's certainly not happening with

everyone. And we probably need further studies to

verify. Is it radio frequency radiation or is it,

you know, loud music and things like that that

are other factors that could affect hearing. But

it's plausible to think that hearing could be

impacted. In fact, you have neuroscientist Dr.

Andrew Uberman, that is very popular online and

did touch a little bit about EMS at the beginning

of 2023. And what he said is that one of the main

reasons he decided to go against Bluetooth is

that he knows very, very deeply the biology of

the brain and especially the inner ear and how

hearing happens. And he said there's no way these

structures are not impacted by radio frequency

radiation because these structures are delicate.

So I guess he just has a, a deep understanding

and in his mind he can picture how small the

internal inner ear apparatus is and how delicate

it is and how magnificently complex it is. And he

said, no, I won't put Bluetooth near it. As if,

you know, for him it's sort of something that

just didn't make sense. It's probably impacting

it even if the studies are not there. Right. So

it depends on your personal background. But I

would say, you know, for, for sure there are,

there are health impacts. And if you have

teenagers and they're in an age where you feel

they know about what you do for health and they

might be open to the possibility of, you know,

you have headaches. Have you thought about the

fact that, you know, some people have headaches

with cell phones or these, these wireless

earbuds? Why don't we do a test instead of

saying, no, they're forbidden. Right. Why don't

we do a test together? Let's use Wired solutions

for a week and see how you feel. And maybe

they're going to have curiosity towards that and

say, yeah, I hate to admit it, but the headaches

are gone. If you can find this type of effect,

well, first it's going to help them their entire

life because getting headaches or then relying on

Tylenol and these pharmaceutical products that

are quite harsh on, on the body and especially

toxic to the body in large quantities and over

time, if you can avoid that, that's good. But

also it's going to teach them a lesson that, yes,

the effects might be subtle for some people, but

for some other people they're going to get

symptoms and maybe you should be prudent towards

these exposures. So of course, if you can feel

it, it makes it very, very real for you. So

that's why one of the strategies I recommend for

all families and something we probably repeat a

thousand times during the summit is turning off

WI fi at night, turning off phones. And if you

only do that and you have a few family members

that say, wait a minute, I think my sleep is

better. Well, if they have just a Hint of, wait a

minute, something is off here. I sleep way better

than before or slightly better than before, then

maybe you're gonna be able to have at least this

conversation is going to open their mind to the

possibility that all these sources might have an

impact on their body somehow.

Yes. And that's true. What I see as most helps

people the most is when they have a personal

experience of sleeping better or feeling better.

Right. That's the best motivator. So, one last

thing I wanted to. To talk about staying on the

topic of teenagers is the anxiety epidemic that

teens are experiencing. And to this day, all of

the literature and all of the documentaries that

are doing the rounds amongst the parenting groups

and the schools are entirely focused on the

content of children's lives. So the content of

social media, the content of what people are

saying to them or not saying to them, and the

conversation hasn't quite shifted to not just

what they're looking at on these devices, but the

effects of the devices themselves. So before we

just to wrap up, could you highlight the

connection to our mental health and specifically

why children and teenagers are experiencing such

high levels of anxiety and insomnia?

Yeah. There is a very good session on EMF

impacts, especially on teenagers, and especially

focused on children's cognition and behavior by

Bonnie Tucker in the Summit. And she. I did not

know Bonnie. A few months ago she wrote to me,

she said, I'm a public health researcher. I've

done basically an entire review of the scientific

literature. And it's very bad. Like, we know for

sure that there's something there when it comes

to the link between exposure and then the

impacts, like add, adhd, but also depression,

anxiety, panic attacks and that whole mental

health crisis. So what she shared with me, for

example, in the interview, is that we have 96% of

children have cell phones. So this is a complete

shift of the patterns of exposures compared to 20

years ago, or let's say even going back 30 years

ago. I remember my dad in 1994, or let's say

1995, 30 years ago, as we're speaking, he used

these big brick phones from Nokia, if you can

recall them. It's completely, it's almost, it's

almost funny how they look because they, they

weighed like a thousand pounds or something and

you couldn't move them around. And yet this was

like the bulk of our exposure back then was

adults, of course, and business people. But now

we have children that have these exposures. And

when she talked a little bit about the science,

for her, it was very, very clear that there's a

link between EMFs and then cognition. So, for

example, she examined around 50 studies from

around the world. 12 were focused on cognitive

impact and 38 on behavioral and health impacts.

And out of the cognition studies, 10 out of 11

showed a statistical significance between EMF

exposure and cognitive decline in teenagers. And

it was like, it was almost like, you know, I know

these things. But I said, wait a minute, it's

like the vast majority of studies are showing

problems. And she said, well, not only that, when

I looked at the behavioral and health impact

studies, 34 out of 38 studies showed statistical

significance between higher exposure groups and

various symptoms. She talked about inattention

issues, behavioral problems of all sorts,

hyperactivities, headaches, sleep problems. And

she said that the odds ratio, what she says here,

I'm just reading from the transcript, not to

butcher it, the odds ratio in these studies are

particularly striking. She said, for example,

with sleep problems, the odds range from 1.9 to

5.9. So, right. You have almost six times more

likely that people are going to get problems with

higher exposures compared to control. So for her,

it was very, very shocking that, you know, how,

how come this is not communicated with the

public? It's not like we have something to prove

anymore. And it's, it's a good, you know, it's

quite dense because we go through all the

studies, but also it's important because it's not

the topic of emf. Again, it goes back to Bret

Weinstein and why were, why it's almost tough to

get into EMFs and to review the literature is

that the evidence is so clear that there's a

problem for children, for teenagers, for brain

tumors, for fertility, for impacts on nature. I

could give you 12 to 15 different research silos

where the level of evidence is so high that we

are like, wait a minute, why, why isn't that in

the news? Or why isn't there, you know, massive

urgent action being done? It should be a scandal

on so many levels. And yet, you know, for all the

reasons we discussed, it's like pushed to the

wayside or, oh, well, we need more studies. Do

we, do we need more? We do need more studies to

elicit some things, but we don't need. Most

scientists would tell me, we don't need more

studies to show harm. Right? We know the harm is

happening. And that's before 5G, even before Wi

Fi, and even at 2G and 3G and barely any WI fi,

we had already early indications. What we need to

do is to start reducing Global exposure at a

societal level that I talked about and also

individual level. The individual level would

already is communicated by certain governments

that tell citizens to. Well, if you can, they can

be very soft about it. If you can, try to

minimize exposure by doing the following. Have

wired solutions, try to turn off devices when not

in use, try not to carry a phone in the pocket,

things like that, so that could be communicated

with citizens. In fact, some scientists tried to

have at the point of sale in Berkeley,

California, a warning that said, if you want to

minimize your EMF exposure, not even the cell

phone is dangerous or anything like that. It was

very soft, it was very laid back. If you want to

minimize RF exposure, radio frequency exposure,

do the following things. And the signs were up

for, I think over a year. And eventually the

industry sued the OR tried to go against this

ordinance from the Berkeley Public Health. And

they won. And they won, saying that you are kind

of making our consumers fearful over these

exposures that are perfectly safe and therefore

you're kind of talking in a way that is

detrimental to our bottom line. And they won.

They won.

Wow.

It was ludicrous. It was ludicrous that they won

because these are precautionary measures. This is

preventative health. You're not saying your cell

phone will kill you. You're not saying your cell

phone will give you cancer. Maybe we should. But

anyway, that's not what they're saying. They're

saying if you want to minimize your exposure, do

the following things. And it was even that was

too threatening to the industry. So that's the

level of aggressivity we're going to see in the

next decades as we try to take this beast of an

industry and then put them back, give them

guardrails. Now you're going to move towers away

from people's home. Now you're going to make your

cell phones emit 10,000 times less within 10

years by doing the following engineering things

that probably could be done, by the way, all of

this could be made safer. Now what's going to

happen is that if you have no users connected to

a cell tower in the middle of nowhere, the cell

tower will completely turn off or emit a beacon

signal that is so small that it's almost

undetectable. Now, the WI fi routers will emit

the minimum amount possible of radiation rather

than the maximum. All of these things can be

done. But at the moment, they hold on for their

dear life to this story, this fairy tale of no

impact, no effect. Everything is safe, and that

way they don't have to redesign cell phones. They

don't have to move the towers away. They don't

have to think about safety. They don't have to

start competing on safety with other phone

manufacturers or telecoms. So it's very

convenient to keep things the same. It's so

convenient and in fact each year that they are

able to prevent us from changing safety

guidelines. They make trillions of dollars that

they would have lost in lost opportunity or in

being forced to do better research and

development. So that's how costly will be to

these industries to rethink the wireless

infrastructure, rethink the technology, the

consumer products, the. Everything needs to be

scrapped in some sense and redone. Imagine what

this represents or probably I don't even know how

many trillions of dollars it will cost to and

who's going to pay for it. And then not talking

about maybe the trillions of dollars that are

going to be given away in compensation if they

admit their guilt. So there's many, many levels

to this story. But if they start admitting that

things are not safe, it's a whole another story

and kind of worms for the industry. And so far

this is why I see, see this is why I think that

the culture of no effect is so important to them.

It's a matter of liability and of keeping

themselves in the dark is so convenient on a

human standpoint. Many people in the industry

don't want to think about it, they don't want to

hear about it and they wouldn't feel good working

for the industry if they admitted to themselves

that, that this is harmful.

Yeah, there's, there's a lot to change, but it

sounds like, you know, the science is there, the

evidence is there. It's, I think now just up to

the people to, to, you know, we need a paradigm

shift. It's like 100% and I, I think it can

happen. And I feel, I truly feel on an energetic

level that we're on the cusp of, of things

shifting and becoming very, very different. And I

really appreciate all the work you've done over

the last eight years, Nick, to make this

information available, accessible, digestible,

actionable. It's a behemoth and bless you for

taking it on. And I encourage everyone to attend

the EMF Hazard Summits this year. EMF hazard

summer it's 2025. The link is in the show notes.

I'll be emailing out links to sign up. It's just

such an important topic and I feel like the more

of us that are somewhat informed, we just need to

reach A critical mass and change will be

forthcoming. Especially since we now have a

sympathetic figure in a decision making role,

which is just incredible. As you said, the world

is filled with infinite possibilities.

I agree 100%. And I'm going to say this in

closing. I was very, very emotional when I heard

RFK Jr talk about electromagnetic radiation. But

I was even. I rarely get emotional about my work

in that way. There are certain things that touch

me, like people that are getting very sick from

the technology, of course, and some of them write

to me and sometimes I just tear up. It's just

part of it. I'm a human being, you know, and

it's, it's, it's tough to see people that are

struggling. But also one moment was especially

important for me two years ago. Elaine O'Connor

from the EM Radiation Trust, if I recall

correctly, she is someone who has been an

activist for, I think it's probably closer to 30

years, so way longer than me. You know, in the

very early days of cell phone safety and these

things in the UK, she told me that in the early

2000s she put together a conference with industry

people, with scientists, with Dr. And she was

very hopeful that things would change. It was

massive. You know, people meeting in the UK with

government officials and she lobbied in the UK

government. And she spent years trying to make

things happen and all of a sudden nothing

happened. And it was heartbreaking to hear it

from her that, you know, she tried to go that

route of not the grassroots movement but more

like doing, you know, trying to convince

governments and going through committees and

things like that, and nothing of substance

happened. And it was, you know, all that time

that she spent, I have no doubt that it led to

something, but not nearly enough to her liking,

like where it couldn't move the needle. And then

she said this, she said, what you're doing with

the EMF Hazard Summit is what I should have done

at the beginning because now I realize, geez,

it's one of these topics. It looks like it's only

going to be grassroots that can move the needle.

I feel like maybe she was undermining herself

saying that. And I think it's going to be legal

activism, lobbying. But consumers, people

listening to the MF Hazard Summit, people

listening to this interview, whether you purchase

something or not is irrelevant. People that have

conversations with their family members, that

have conversations that are sometimes very

difficult, let's admit this will change things

faster or more likely to make a big change

compared to people trying to lobby the government

and things like that. Maybe with RFK Jr. Is going

to change. But either way, let's not wait on one

savior to, you know, fix the entire thing. We

need to continue the conversation and like you

said, double down on how motivated we feel to

raise awareness, to protect ourselves and then to

talk about it. And to make it a normal topic of

conversation, I think is also important. A topic

that is quite often, you know, a side issue that

is considered fringe. Tinfoil Hatter there's no

serious scientists that have ever said there's

EMF dangers kind of thing. And all the BS I see

online because people are really convinced that

there's no effect. This is what they're being

told and what they've been told their entire

life. So let's put an end to this and at least

recognize that there are concerns we can argue

about. How big is the concern? I would say pretty

big. So some others would say, oh, it's slight,

you know, a small concern, but at least there is

a concern. There is something that needs to be

fixed and it's through awareness and spreading

this information that things are going to change.

And that's my angle on this. That's why I put

this summit together. I'm going to continue to be

here for years. Because we're very far from at

least a very decent fraction of the population,

at least in the western world that understand

these things and then demand from the companies

that they change their act and they put safer

options on the market.

Absolutely. Just like if you, if you're health

minded and someone walks in and sees your

cupboards filled with Oreos and Fruit Loops,

they're going to be like, I thought you were into

health. We just got to live it.

Yeah.

And yeah, absolutely. Every voice matters, every

person listening. You matter. Please go to the

summit, listen to that. And even if you just take

away a few insights that you are then able to

talk about with your community, with your

friends, with your family, with people you know,

it all makes a difference. It's the. Yes, it's

that ripple out from the people that is going to

tip things over and support at the top is

amazing. But I'm totally with you, Nick, so let's

keep going everyone. It's a, it's an amazing

timeline we're living in. I wonder what's going

to happen next.

For sure. I'm watching it like a movie. You know,

I have popcorn every day these days with hearings

and politics and controversies and all of this.

And I'm like, oh my God, what a media frenzy we

are in. It's maddening and sometimes I have to

just turn up the computer and go sit on my sofa

and relax. And I'm like, oh, my God, this is too

much. There's so much happening. But I hope that

in the midst of it all, you can find a little bit

of time for the EMF Hazard Summit. Find a few

talks to watch, and I know you're going to get a

ton of value from it. It is my hope, at least.

Yeah, no, it's fantastic. I really, really

recommend everyone go and sign up for it. Nick,

thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to talk

to you. I really, really enjoy your work and our

conversations. Thanks for being here.

Thanks for having me. It's been a blast. Thank

you.