Undoctrinate Yourself - #44 - Nick Pineault

Episode Date: April 26, 2026

Nick Pineault, aka "The EMF Guy", is a citizen journalist and educator focused on safe tech use and building awareness around the harms of non-native electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs). Nick is hosting the EMF Hazards 2025 Summit, which is a free, virtual event running April 10-15, 2025. The expert speakers will educate listeners on the health harms of nnEMFs and what to do to mitigate exposures and protect yourself, your family, and your community from undue harms.Sign up for the summit and to learn about the speakers:https://theemfguy.com/op/summit/?oprid=91142&ref=272713Find Nick on Insta @nickpineaultNick's Website where you can find his blog, books, and more:https://theemfguy.com/Follow Dr. Alexis on Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@dralexisjazmyn⁠⁠:https://www.instagram.com/dralexisjaz...Follow Dr. Alexis on X @dralexisjazmyn:https://x.com/dralexisjazmynSupport the podcast on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/c/UndoctrinateYourselfPodcast/homeJoin QuantumU:https://dralexisjazmyn.thinkific.com/courses/quantumuJoin ⁠The Incubator⁠ Book Club and Think Tank:https://dralexisjazmyn.thinkific.com/courses/theincubator

Hello, everyone. Welcome back to Undoctrinate Yourself. Today, I'm joined by the incredible Nick Pinot, who is also known as the EMF guy. We're recording a special podcast for you guys, not only because I've been wanting to really have an expert on this topic onto the podcast, but also because Nick is hosting a conference that starts on April 10th called the EMF Hazards 2025. And there's going to be incredible guest speakers there. It runs from April 10th through April 15th. It's free, right, Nick? It is. Yeah, so it's free to join. We're going to have the links that you can sign up and check it out in the show notes. There's going to be incredible speakers, incredible information for parents, families, and individuals looking to understand the harms of EMFs, non-Native EMFs, and how to protect themselves. So I can't recommend it enough. I'm definitely going to be checking it out. But with that, you know, I'm sure we're going to get into some of the science and the important information today in this chat as well.

But I just want to start by welcoming you on the show. and thank you so much for sharing time with us today. It's a pleasure. Thanks for having me. You know, I listened to your interview with Becker and, not Becker, sorry, Marino talking about the work of Becker. And it was great. I think, you know, your audience is clearly very well aware of these dangers. And then we can talk about some of the topics in particular on the summits,

if you will, if you want, which is, you know, the most vulnerable, the studies around children, teenagers and things like that. But I look forward to this chat. Yeah, amazing. And I was just telling Nick before we hopped on that I initially found him through Paul Check, like, gosh, it must have been like seven, eight years ago at this point. And so it's really cool that we can finally connect and share some time together. So yeah, I mean, maybe we can start by understanding a little bit how you became the EMF guy. Like, what was that journey like that made you interested in the space? Yeah, you know, I started in environmental toxins without even knowing that that was a niche or there was something, you know, I just discovered. food documentaries talking about the widespread contamination of the food supply, probably, you know, being very alarmed around glyphosate, around Fukushima, when it happened in those years, 2011, if I recall correctly.

And then, you know, just discovering that protein powders were being tested independently by consumer reports or even by people like, you know, the Health Ranger Mike Adams, who had a great book, Food Forensics. and reading that and realizing, my God, like, how is it possible that the three-letter agencies or here in Canada, I'm from Montreal, so in Canada, we have Health Canada, and they don't do much better. They do essentially the same thing as the U.S. agencies. And how come no one is warning us about these things and how come these industries are not

more strictly regulated? I was really under the impression that if something hit the shelf, you could eat it safely and everything was fine. Like it was guaranteed to be without health impacts for my body. And I discovered, oh, my God, I was so naive about the situation. And of course, it led me down the path to understanding tap water isn't safe. The air is widely contaminated. And then it's a lot.

It's a lot to think about. And you kind of become a little bit crazy at one point. Eventually, maybe you come back to an area of more like mindfulness and sanity. But then I discovered EMFs and went back to the crazy rabbit hole discovering, my God, even the computer in front of me is emitting radiation that's not regulated, not regulated by the right people, which should be completely independent from the industry they're supposed to regulate, which is not the case. And so therefore, you know, my computer isn't any safer than my protein powder laden with arsenic and lead and mercury and cadmium. So what do I do about this? That's even more nerve-wracking because I was on Wi-Fi. I had a Bluetooth mouse.

I had a Bluetooth keyboard. I had Wi-Fi at home. I had everything. Like every person out there. And that was in around 2015. And I started reading one book after another. And when I read books like Martin Blanks, Overpowered, for example, it was at Columbia University, was very precise.

guy and I cannot recall his expertise must have been toxicology or something similar. And then all the other scientists, it was not like two or three fringe scientists talking about these dangers. It was a massive amount of scientists throughout the decades. Some of them are, you know, Becker, Marino, Alan Frye in the 70s and even discovering that the Navy had reports from 1971, again, talking about the radar. operators getting sick and I'm like my god this is this is you know a worldwide cover up about the wireless effects and instead of being prudent with the rollout of technologies or maybe not rolling them

out at all because there's no way to make it safe which is possibly the case what they did is the opposite they rolled out the cell towers first in the 80 70s 80s 80s 90s and then nowadays we have miniature cell towers throughout our homes in the form of Wi-Fi routers and, you know, boosters and sensors, internet of things. And I just read about the rollout of 5G eventually. When I published my book in 2017, 5G was kind of this vague idea. It's coming. It's dangerous. And I said, my God, it's incredible that we're still rolling out more and more of these technologies, even with all the science. And it made me so shocked, I guess, that I decided to not only write the book, but continue in this direction. What alarmed me,

I must say, is that that year in 2017, when I published my book, in the fall a few months after the book publication and when it got on Amazon, I went to a health conference. It was one of the best groups of physicians that are very knowledgeable about environmental toxins, functional medicine, and, you know, they were supposed to be the most cutting-edge physicians out there in holistic thinking. And yet, not one of them understood EMFs. And they asked me questions that were very basic, like, what is airplane mode, you know, and why should I turn off Wi-Fi at night? And all the very basics, they did not understand.

They did not understand the health impact. They did not understand the sources. They did not understand how to take readings. And I had an EMF reader, a good old coronet meter that I'd brought at the conference, and the levels in these conference rooms where you have 300 of the nation's best physicians and even internationally mingling, talking about holistic health changes, the levels of EMS were the worst I've ever measured. So I said there's something going on here where we're in deep, deep, deep trouble. These people are supposed to be at the cutting edge,

and yet even the cutting edge isn't aware of these dangers. So we really have a lot of work to do to educate those that are supposed to know about the early dangers. And they were on top of things talking about Clifacet, talking about many, many things way before other people and way before the mainstream. But somehow EMFs, a lot of them were even skeptical that this is an issue in the first place. Some of them, I've been at conferences in the last eight years,

and some researchers that I talk to that are, experts in other topics still doubt that this is possible and still hold the position that you know it's probably a small issue if it is and you know this is non-ionizing radiation the reality is you know this does nothing to biology your biology basically ignores the signal and to this day i still find people that i respect i can respect them because they have expertise in a certain field, but they're so siloed and ignorant of this topic. And yet it comes with a, I don't know if it's a eubris. For some of them, it is. But for some of them, it's simply, they are so convinced that there's no impact that they will not look into it. Because why should

they? It's like saying, you know, do, I don't know, I don't have a silly example in mind, but, you know, when you think a topic is fringe, you don't look into it seriously. Like, why would you? You don't have an event or something in your life that makes you go, wait a minute, there's probably something to it. And the exception was these physicians that felt it, that felt electrosensitive, which is almost, you know, a misnomer. Those that felt that they were exposed and they had symptoms, these were the people that took it seriously. Oh my gosh. I have so many threads that I want to pull on there. I mean, just to start briefly, I mean, you were just talking about electric sensitivity. I have a hypothesis around this that I'd love to test in my future light lab.

And actually, maybe to backpedal briefly, people should know that non-native VMFs are a form of light that we can't just see with our eyes. But our bodies are sensing them, and especially our mitochondria are sensing them? And so something that I want to study in the light lab is, are people with electrosensitivity, do they have higher levels of heteroplasmia in their mitochondria, meaning do they have more mutational burden? Because as the mitochondria become more dysfunctional, one would suppose that maybe those mitochondria become more sensitive to even smaller inputs from the environment that maybe a more robust, healthier person wouldn't feel those sensations and those experiences from, you know, having EMFs in their environment, for example.

So that's one thing that I really want to study and look into. And as it relates to, like, experts in the field pushing back on this, I got into a bit of a spat with Dr. Michael Levin on Twitter or X. He's a big bioelectricity guy. And he was basically making the argument that, because I was saying, you know, I think this is a really important area of study and nobody is testing things. Yep. Like there's no well-controlled labs that are able to test these things well because we want to both eliminate the non-native EMFs while also allowing in the natural EMFs in order to study how cells and organisms actually work. And I told him, like, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you've never done properly controlled experiments. And then he was like, oh, well, that's, like, ridiculous.

Of course, like, I've used Faraday cages and stuff studying, like, the cells and everything. And I'm like, well, if you're using Faraday cages, you're blocking the Schumann residents. I bet your cells weren't exposed to sunlight, natural EMFs, the Earth's magnetic field. All of those things are important. In addition to, you know, the absence of non-Native EMFs, we also need enough of the natural EMFs. And when we're able to get into environments that's, like, exposed our bodies to those natural EMFs, it helps to buffer ourselves against the non-native EMFs by supporting the mitochondria directly. And so he, like, basically responded to that tweet saying like, okay, you think non-AVMF are so important.

I think that these 10 other areas are really important and include things like cancer, domestic violence, autism, other chronic disease states. And I'm like, well, what if I told you that there's published research showing that non-native EMFs can underlie all of these conditions, mental health conditions like mitochondrial diseases, like all of these things are made worse at the very least by non-native BMFs, if not outright caused by them. So I think it's very myopic and hubristic for the broader scientific and medical communities to say that these things don't matter when they've become absolutely ubiquitous in our environments, you literally cannot get away from them. And if you look at the trends in our chronic disease burden, everything is going up

to the right. So clearly we're missing something. I agree 100%. And studying EMFs is just a scientific nightmare on so many levels. Yes. The introduction of many different types of frequencies, modulation schemes, polarization types where you modify the EMF in a 3D environment. I barely understand it. You know, I'm kind of throwing buzzwords here, but this is what I learned from engineers who understand how the temper with signals.

Just like a way you would temper with certain ingredients like a seed and extract its oil using hexane and then have a clean product at the end, but you don't understand all the potential implications of all these different techniques you use for extraction. And the final product is not just a source of lipids and whatever ingredients you detect in it. It's a source of other things and essentially information that's very, very, very, you know, bizarre to your biology like what on earth is this new product that you put in your fries right so the same idea is with EMFs and it's is the cumulative synergistic implications of all EMF exposures

throughout you know a lifetime of exposure that should be measured and that plus other agents in the environment and that's if people haven't heard of Dr. Ronal Costa he's a very important figure in the sense that I think he's the only sciences that ever spoke about all the possible synergies between EMF exposures, modern human-made EMF exposures, and different environmental toxins. And what he said is, you know, there are so many possible toxic synergies between EMFs and other things like lead or even some types of air pollution or certain agents in our tap water that it would be essentially impossible to do enough toxicology experiments

to try to figure out what is the right safe dose of EMLs that is safe because it might be safe, you know, you might say, well, maybe it's one micro watt per square meter. And then you might discover that at one micro watt per square meter plus a certain amount of lead in a lifetime, now the one micro watt per square meter becomes overwhelming to children. So then you say, okay, well, we're going to be able to be. reduce the limit. But then you discover one micro-watt per square meter of wireless plus lead

plus air pollution in certain cities is too much. So now you have how many environmental toxins to figure out. And even, you know, he said, you know, even if we had a project like the best scientific endeavor of all time, it wouldn't be sufficient. So he said, well, because of that, we need to stop rolling out technologies right now. Obviously, because our ability to study this thing is almost impossible. And also, our models are deeply flawed, as you alluded to, which I think is brilliant. Like, you're studying things in labs, you're studying mice in the setting that is completely artificial, possibly shielding natural frequencies, and of course, shielding, you know, just there's no natural sunshine in these experiments. So we're really, is that why most of the

scientific publications cannot be reproduced? Or, How much can we trust the scientific literature in the first place? I don't know. It's super complicated, but that's why scientists have been saying, at a minimum, we should reduce exposure to the bare minimum. Instead, what has been done is maximize it to the bare maximum, and we're still moving in this direction. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

And I want to pull on a thread that you had in your introduction, where you said that you were kind of appalled that even with the side, that we have, that this rollout is still happening at like warp speed. And my concern is that that this rollout isn't happening like even with the science, but maybe because of the science. And that's where like the ignorance versus fraud or like the nefarious nature versus the ignorance nature kind of comes into play. Because I mean, if we look back in the 50, 60, 70s at Fry and Becker's work and my mentor, Dr. Jack Cruz talks about this quite a bit as well. The fact that Becker got canceled because he was actually studying how to heal yourself.

from exposures like this. And Fry didn't get canceled. And he was simply studying, like, the negative effects that can come as a result. So, like, it makes you wonder, you know, did somebody see this data and then thought to themselves, like, this could actually be a really nefarious silent weapon for a silent war that's now being played out societally.

And I mean, even Fry back in the 60s had statements around, like, he was concerned about the use of, like, EMF, directed EMF weapons and this type of thing. And then, of course, his work got linked into Havanaugh. and there have been patients of Havana syndrome that have been identified like clinically now. And so that we know is a thing too. And I believe there were some ambassadors in like the American embassy in Russia that they kept getting lymphomas, I think, like every time everyone went over there.

Like they were dropping like flies. And so something had to be done. And apparently I don't know. I haven't fact checked this, but I know Jack has talked about how Russia was allegedly using that as like a way to tell us that we're playing with five. essentially. I know that Russia is way more strict about EMF exposures and many other countries are actually compared to the U.S. So it seems like, you know, whether it's a combination of nefarious nature or ignorance, it's at the very least at the public level. Most people are just completely ignorant of

the effects of light on biology in general. And within the non-native EMF conversation, I think we also need to include things like our energy efficient light bulbs, LEDs, fluorescence, even window glass, which is filtering natural light. So we're getting bombarded with all of these unnatural frequencies and our mitochondria are like, you know, what the heck is this environment that we're inhabiting? It's completely alien. A hundred percent. And something you talk about, I think a good interview that people should listen to.

I'm going to send the link after the interview so you can include it. It's with Dr. Beatrice Gollum, G-O-L-O-M-B. She's an expert on the Havana syndrome, probably the world expert. She reviewed what was happening more recently in the American embassy in Cuba. She talked about something that will interest you. That's the first time I heard it. This happens rarely because I've been studying the topic for almost a decade. She said her hypothesis is that many people who suffer from are extremely sensitive to EMS.

We're talking about people that can be sickened by just one cell phone in the room. It's crazy to think about this levels of sensitivity, but it exists. And she said, many people are trying to gaslight these people saying, no, it's impossible, you're not feeling this, you're crazy. But many of these people prior to becoming this sick from EMFs or disreactive, if you will, were highly functioning, highly intelligent people. They're in computing, their attorneys, their politicians. You had Grohl Bruntlin, who was the head of WHO, a very high position in W.

WHO, I think 10 to 20 years ago, who was very actual sensitive. And even her office at WHO was shielded against EMFs. It's crazy. Eventually, she got, you know, removed from there. And maybe the politics, I don't know exactly what happened or she ended her mandate or something. But anyway, all that to say that these people are highly functioning. Her hypothesis is that if your mitochondria, which, you know, if your energy demands are higher, you get sick more rapidly from EMFs.

And she said, what if these people are highly intelligent, high IQ individuals, and it makes them more, you know, over time, they are more impacted by an energy deficit. Like, they crash faster. So it was special because that's the first time I heard this theory of maybe, you know, the most intelligent among us or high functioning are crashing first from these EMF effects. And if someone had an agenda and said, well, I love the population to be dumbed down, then of course it is a line with, like, it is a very good idea to continue rolling

this technology because everyone's going to have this energy deficit, the mitochondria are just running slower and slower in a sense and more dirtier also, you know, producing more oxidative distress in their conversion process is what I understand. And, you know, correct me if I say anything. stupid because you understand the deep biology better than I do. But my my my understanding is that over time you get mitochondrial dysfunction and the lowering of your ability to produce energy and this impacts brain function in a big in a big way. So it's something where yes, the cancers were seen in the Havana syndrome and all sorts of different symptoms, but also brain function was completely shattered, you know, in these individuals. And, you know, if I had a weapon that

can make people unable to think, it's pretty good. I mean, is it even better than killing them? I would say yes, because you know, you just make them dumber. You can still take their money. Well, exactly. And it's more covert. It's like, well, everyone working on the embassy now as a hard time figuring out a defense strategy

or as a hard time figuring out things, like being productive, imagine how well you could, like what kind of advantage is it if you're enemy or people you don't agree with or maybe people you want to see at a financial disadvantage on the market, just have a hard time being smart with things and being productive. Just that is a tremendous effect if you want to use it for negative purposes. Yeah. And I mean, these issues around like targeted energy weapons and Havana syndrome was also origin of like the tinfoil hat, like term. right? Is that right? Well, I think tinful hat, I don't know exactly what is the origin,

but there's the movie Signs with Joe Ken Phoenix, where he wants to, you know, connect with extraterrestrials. And eventually, I think he has like this scene with a tinful hat. Like, people send me that, I think, a gift from that on the comments and say, you know, oh, this is BS. But, you know, the good news, I guess, just, I guess opening a little segue here or parentheses is, you know, in the comments I used to have a lot of these detractors a few years ago, and they're mostly silent. There's like one engineer per 10,000 people that will come in and say, oh, this is BS. And rapidly, he gets destroyed by everyone who says, no, look, there's plenty of data.

Look at this. And he goes silent. So I feel like it's changing. It's more mainstream. But it doesn't mean that, you know, any of the, like, it's the exposure. Like, we haven't seen that change on the policy level yet or on the device level yet. Like, nothing is safer. To the contrary, everything is more dangerous than ever or more biologically active.

And there are more towers and, you know, the rules haven't changed. So at least I see a change in public awareness, but, you know, it's frustrating that we don't see a change at the policy level that would make things at least safer rapidly. if you change cell tower placements or, you know, just lowering the levels of exposure could make at least help a little bit, you know. Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, I'm thinking back to when Becker got canceled in 1977. And for people who don't know, he went on to 60 minutes because he had been publishing papers into the military archives. And then he went to go check where they were. They were about the harms of non-native EMFs, essentially on human body.

And the papers weren't there. And so he was like, you know, this is really important. The public needs to know he goes on 60 minutes, spills the beans, and then within two days his lab is completely defunded. And it was already being defunded somewhat before he decided to go on. But he figured, you know, it was worth murdering his career and himself to tell people this. But at the time, people didn't really have a context to understand EMF exposure because EMFs were few and far between outside of like military radar and this type of thing.

People didn't have Wi-Fi, cell phones, Bluetooth, like all of this stuff wasn't. part of their everyday life. And so it basically just kind of was maybe an oddity and maybe something that piqued some people's curiosity. But for by and large, like, it wasn't really of interest to people. And so it didn't really hit. But it seems like, it seems like this whole rollout and this trajectory was planned from even back then. Like, nothing was going to get in the way of this happening. And especially because we know most technology is like it's being developed 20 plus years before it ever rolls out. So there is like a history there. And also as it relates to tinfoil, I mean, radio frequencies, which are like mostly the non-adivMS we're talking about with all of the Bluetooth Wi-Fi, 5G, etc, are actually blocked by tinfoil.

So, like, I did the experiment myself. Like, I wrap my phone in tinfoil and, like, you try to call my phone. You can't call my phone because those waves can't get in there. So I'm guessing that's also, you know, related to, like, the whole tinfoil had ideas, like, protecting somebody's brain from directed energy weapons at their head. And I think there was a book in, like, the mid-1900, something about this. I don't remember the exact ideology, but I know actually, actually has a little fun maybe conspiracy theory to throw in here. I had the thought that like, oh, crap, maybe they like banned lead paint because lead paint would actually block EMFs from coming into the home because lead absorbs, you know, it blocks a ton of EMFs. That's why you wear like the lead vest of the dentist and stuff.

And now they come into homes and they make sure there's no lead paint. And they said kids were eating it, but like, were kids really eating it? I don't know. Yeah, well, you know, I know I've seen that online and sometimes I commented, yeah, you know, there are other materials that are much safer that can block EMS. Like you have carbon-based paints that are not necessarily non-toxic, but you can paint over them, over the paint. So you don't need lead paint. And lead is a material that's kind of clunky and very expensive and very, very heavy, especially if you have lead sheet, which is required if you want to block. X-rays and higher frequencies in a medical setting, but, you know, it's not, it's not the

technology for blocking. There are other things that are much safer. And I would say the problem with lead paint, my understanding, is not necessarily, you know, that kids were eating it, but when you start drilling into the walls to install your new IKEA furniture, then you have a lot of dust that is a lot of lead that you breathe in. So, I don't know, on a building perspective, I would avoid any type of lead inside. And that's speaking from someone who is on a journey to discover that I have the lead levels of someone who wielded stuff in industries their entire life. I discovered that, you know, six months ago. I've been working on, yeah, that's another, you know, this is probably a topic I'll be more public about like in a year or two because I have a documentary coming out about that, about my journey.

But it's kind of mad, you know, I pay attention to my health. closely for the last 15 years. And yet, here I am being, like, having extreme levels of lead in my tissues. And it's just a shocking discovery for myself. And then it led, no pun intended, to me at least doing chelation therapy and getting some of the lead out. And within, you know, two treatments that each lasts about an hour, I was completely different. Like, my mind just woke up and I feel like it's almost like,

my ambition for life came back within two hours of treatment. And I'm like, wait a minute. If this is the impact that I have as someone who, you know, took care of their help for 15 years, how many people are toxic would just lead? I also have sky high mercury, by the way, another incredible neurotoxins. So, I mean, imagine that plus EMS, right? But it, I don't know, not to completely digress or divert the conversation, but just, yes, people that have higher heavy metals are more prone to feeling

EMS and feeling sick from EMS. And that's just the synergistic effects we talk about with, you know, that researcher Kostov. I'll send you a paper with Kostov. It's very interesting. And just, you know, it's daunting. I don't share about it too often because people would go crazy and Nick, you're like fear mongering. Well, I mean, this is published literature is just, it's very, sad to think about. It's kind of scary to think about these things. And I don't, you know, I try to be practical about it most of the time and more share like, okay, ways you can reduce exposure, what you can do about it and less about, you know, everything that's scary because there's like too much. Totally. Actually, speaking of chelation, there's an interesting parallel here

between like the heavy metals and radio frequencies and non-AVAMF in general. And that is like the melanin story. So a lot of people don't know that melanin is a really potent heavy metal keelator. It can pull mercury lead out of the bloodstream and sequester it in the skin, and then you can, you know, you shed your skin layers. And so we have this built-in mechanism to actually get rid of heavy metals, but most people aren't getting out in full-spectrum sun, getting a tan, developing their melanin. That's going to actually able to protect them. But in addition to being a heavy metal chelator, melanin also absorbs all wavelengths of light, including radio frequencies. And apparently when they were doing these studies back in like the mid-1900s, like

1950s, 1960s, I guess the MK Ultra studies, because they were studying non-Native EMFs in those studies for sure. They were trying to understand how light could be used to manipulate people, essentially. And they saw that people with darker skin were harder to get control of because they have all of this melanin that's absorbing

that light and blocking it from getting inside. So if you want to be healthy, I mean, you know, people think getting a tan looks nice, but it's also actually good for you, despite what the centralized medical boards will say, there's no such thing as a healthy tan, well, you know, they're also gaslighting us and every other thing, so it shouldn't be surprised that's also false. Well, thank you for sharing that. It's actually the first time I hear about this link. And I, melanin, you know, I try to understand

Jack Cruz. I don't have your IQ and background, so I cannot. I try. I understand that melan is important. You know, he shared with me that, you know, what is the best thing someone can do for electrical sensitivity, get in the sun. That's it. It was like the main thing is building your melanin and building. And yes, some of these people become sensitive to the sun where they are so disconnected from the environment that they cannot handle a lot. But if you take it gradually, you can build up your tolerance and you shouldn't be afraid of getting in the sun, especially as you build that tolerance back up. So it was his main message. But I had no idea about melanin, the heavy metals. So it makes me motivated. It's actually sunny right now, right outside, even if you can tell.

And I'm like, okay, I need to get out. I can get on my roof and be essentially, you know, without any clothes and no one sees me. So I'll have an integral melanin building throughout the summer, which I'm excited about. Amazing. Yeah. And also, like to circle back to the just flagrant disregard that the regulatory agencies have for our health. I remember reading when I was doing some research on Ellen Fry for a post I was making on social media. I was reading about the 1996 Telecommunications Act that basically

said that nobody can stop cell communication companies from putting cell towers anywhere including next to nursing homes and schools and hospitals which is insane because other countries including France, Italy,

Switzerland, Russia all have ordinances around this like you can't put a cell tower next right next to a school or right next to a hospital. And there was even a study I was reading from 2015 that was done in the Middle East, I think maybe Saudi Arabia. And they compared a school, like a bunch of school children in one school that was about 200 meters away from a like a cell tower at the time. I guess it would have been like 4G. And then they compared those kids to another group of school children at another school that wasn't next to a cell tower. And they showed that the kids next to the cell tower had

significantly higher levels of HBA-1C showing higher fasting glucose levels and also significantly higher type 2 diabetes diagnoses compared to the kids who were at the school away from a cell tower. And it's just so sad that we're subjecting children who are completely helpless and just, you know, depending on us to protect them to these atrocities. Is the, is the intensity levels that actually matter? And it has been a debate among scientists. Like, is it the intensity of the signal that matters? And the reason I tell you that is, you know, is a cell tower at two miles still safe?

Or is it, you know, safer than a cell tower at, you know, 200 feet? It is safer. It's probably not safe either because we know there are, you know, even very, very, very small exposures could lead to an increased permeability of the broadband barrier could lead to oxidative distress. So we don't know what the safe dose is. So there's that and that's true, but at the same time, proximity to an antenna or proximity to anything, to even your smartphone, right? It matters for the antennas, it matters for your

smartphone. It's just that your smartphone has a maximum possible exposure for your body, and an antenna is much, it's like bodywide. It creates this entire, you know, beam or bubble that you live in if that's near your home or that you work in, if that's near your workplace. or maybe it's, you know, a school, and they are in there for years if they go to the same school throughout primary school, for example, or a high school. So it's really the cumulative impact that matter. But what surprised me the most recently in the last two years, three years, is Mona Nilsson, one of the speakers on the summit, is a journalist from Sweden. And she worked with Dr. Leonard Hardell. Hardell is well known for his work around cancer epidemiology. He's an oncologist. He's an

MD also and a researcher. And he was one of the first scientists to sound the alarm about the ancient orange sprayed in Vietnam being a carcinogen. So he got a lot of accolades for his work around that. And unsurprisingly so, when he started publishing around cell phones and brain cancer, he got, you know, mixed feelings about it because of course it's super controversial. And they both teamed up to do short-term case studies on people in Sweden. that gets sick within a week or two of a 5G tower being installed. And we're talking about very close proximity, where the tower is within a few hundred feet.

You can see it in its line of sight. So people are living in the worst possible scenario where it's not going to represent a very large fraction of the population, but could be applicable to certain children that are in a school. And let's say it's a large school with multiple buildings. And the building next door has a large antenna, it's pointing towards a classroom. There are a lot of scenarios you can look at.

You can easily find it on the internet where people are exposed at very close range. And they would be exposed to levels that are comparable to these case studies. In these case studies, you see things like people crash within a week or two, and they recover fairly quickly when they get out of the environment. So it's an extreme example where literally it's as if, you know, you have a very large dose of lead where you feel sick, you have, you would probably vomit, diarrhea, I think you would have blue lips. I read about, you know, just looking at myself and my lead exposure,

I read about lead poisoning. And of course, what you find is when you kind of swallow lead or these scenarios where you have to go to the hospital or you're going to die within a few days. But it's scary. But with EMFs, this type of very high exposure is seen in many countries. And it's just so dramatic. and sad and

makes me angry that in North America we're just allowing these exposures to happen at a very close range so that everyone can have good connectivity to the tower but it doesn't need to be on the school it doesn't need to be pointing towards someone's bedroom it could be like far away

from residential areas or as far as we can make it but that's not the case again by and that's just because of the Telecom Act because of the bad policy and because the telecoms at the moment, athletes in North America, are very happy with how they shape policy because the 1996 Telecom Act, I was reminded recently that it was one of the most lobbied act in history in the U.S. Again, not that surprising to all of us that have been studying various topics. Of course, you have industry involvement, but the

the telecoms have a lobbying power that is in many regards as bad or worse than Big Pharma. So we hear about Big Pharma. A lot of people have realized that Big Pharma can shape our understanding of things, public opinion, how medicine is practiced, how medicine, how doctors think about science. What they're taught? what their thought, the medical journals, the editors, the academia, it's everything. Now change pharma for telecoms. And it means that it's a huge deal how involved they are in like I do, it's not that I suspect for

sure it is almost now a cultural reality that they have shaped into our mind that there's no effect from EMFs. Like it is the reason why I argue in Facebook comments with random people who seemingly know nothing about EMS bio effects, but they are so sure that there's no effect. Like this, this knowing is so strong and they get angry if you tell them, no, in fact, there's an effect. Why? And I ask myself, well, it's part of they kind of penetrated the core. culture of engineering, of computing, of all these people. And it's starting to crumble, but it's still holding out strong. And I feel like, you know, when you tell me Michael Levin, I must react to that because,

you know, I contacted Levin, didn't hear back. I didn't expect to hear back. But in a book that was published a year or two ago about bioelectricity by a journalist, Sally Something, I remember writing to one of, I think. the most important journalists in the world, Lewis Sesslin PhD from Microwave News. And I told them, did you read this book? And he said, yes.

And I said, were you aggravated by the fact that all she talked about is the history and discovery of bioelectricity? And then the potential advances for medicine that are incredible. So exciting that we understand how potassium and sodium and calcium channels operate. And maybe we can, you know,

generate limbs and all of this. And this is exciting. Yes. But what about the possibility that your smartphone changes these channels as well? What are we doing? And there was not a single mention about anyone who studied this, including Alan Fry and the Navy or Becker or Marino. None. Or none of the biophysics that are more modern like I think the number one EMF biophysicist in the world right now. Dr. Dimitri J. Panagopoulos from the University of Athens, who has published four years ago a paper that describes what he says is almost the definitive biophysics of how EMFs could impact the different ion channels in his cell.

For him, it's not all the bio effects that exist, because of course he's open to the possibility that there's many things we're missing, but it's pretty much like, look, this is, like this is done. It is the paper. And yet, you have 11 other people in silos that will not want to change their position on this because they have been convinced there's no effect. So even the main or the top researcher on bioelectricity in the world, arguably, or one of maybe of the top few, is not acknowledging that other external factors could impact the channels that they are studying every day in the lab. How crazy is that?

It's so bizarre, but I think it's, they've succeeded in permeating the society on all levels with this message. And it is a hard sell to tell everyone you've been duped in such a major way. But with Levin, when I heard you tell that on a podcast, I was shocked because I was like, oh my God, Levin heard about it and he's reaction. acting like, not like a jerk, but like someone who doesn't know about it and doesn't want to know. And of course, doesn't want to hurt his career because I'm sure he has plenty of grant money. He's like cutting edge, university funding, NIH funding, blah, blah, blah.

And why would he start looking at wireless? Well, only if he has enough money, doesn't care about his career and cares more about people's help and becomes convinced in the first place that this is an issue. The incentives are many that, you know, he's incentivized on all angles to never study the topic, even as the world's expert on bioelectricity. Well, that was the crazy part, because the only reason I actually went after him a little bit on this

is because I saw a clip of a podcast that he did where he talked about how he was growing up in Canada as well, and he went into this old used bookshop and he found, I think, the body electric and he read it and it completely shaped his trajectory, but he went out of his way to tell the person interviewing him that half the book

was like super inspiring to him and wanted to make him go into bioelectricity and the other half about the harms of non-Nadiviam masks is a red herring. He went out of his way to say it's a red herring, which also the term red herring implies that the person is intentionally trying to lead readers astray. which is so disingenuous.

Like, Becker literally martyred himself for this cause. And Levin's out here saying, you know, this other stuff is a red herring. And so that's why I was like, you know, and then also Jack Cruz actually came to Levin's defense at first. He was like, you know, he just doesn't want to end up like Becker and get his funding pulled. And then Levin responded. And he was like, no, actually that's not it at all. Like, I just don't think this is important. I've actually been like approached by multiple funding bodies who are funding like non-Native BMF research and I turn them away.

Yeah, that's crazy. So it makes it difficult, you know, and then you have guys like Panagopoulos, for example, just told me, and I want to be careful about what I say, but he just told me, you know, it is difficult to publish on this topic. And this is one of the reasons he didn't want to do a video interview. I was like, yeah, I'm going to interview you, you know, I think you're the top biophysic. I had the sense that, look, look, Nick, I like you. you have this small blog, the EMF guy, all of this is cool. But I'm just playing this game of not gathering too much attention. And I felt like it was highly strategic of him not to be too public about his work.

And he's a reserved guy. And I respected it. And I said, OK, well, can we do a written interview? And we did. And we talked about his paper. But I felt like he's not the only scientist like that. You know, you had Professor Holi-Jewensen. you have Mona Nelson that I told you about with the 5G case studies.

She got censored all over media. Cannot get one interview on the topic, even though they have the case studies. They have 10, what is it, eight, maybe nine published publications about that now. No one will talk about it. No, no one in the media is interested to hear a story like, these people are literally getting sick within two weeks of this thing getting installed.

and we have the measurements before and after, and we have the medical reports, and we have everything, and they're not even interested, which is, you know, complete again, because, of course, the media are not only caught in telecom advertising, but also at every level of this media are people that believe there's no effect, right?

So it's like we always go back to square one. It's like everyone is convinced there's no effect. And if Levin was convinced that there is an effect, maybe, and I think I would believe him. I don't know the guy, but it is plausible that he thinks there's no effect. You know, Uberman is another phenomenon. I was looking forward to his episode on EMFs. He published inside his membership in early 2023, which is seen by, I don't know, he must have a very good following, maybe a few thousand people, 10,000 something. That study, you know, its clips around cell phones and the pocket, he said that the data on cell phones in the pocket negatively affecting testosterone is more solid, is more rigorous, there's more data than BPA affecting testosterone. And I was like, wait a minute, are you kidding me? If that's true, why, like, if there's this level of certainty, why aren't we sounding

a grave alarm to the entire population? Like, keeping a cell phone in the pocket will decrease testosterone. There should be a warning sign or something, or we should simply engineer your phone so that when it detects that it's close to your body, it shuts down all the signals. Because, of course, it's not like men have too much testosterone in 2025. We have a health crisis already, and we have a health crisis for fertility already. So when Uberman, you know, who, of course, always plays this game of wanting to stay politically correct and all of this, Some people hate him for it. I tend to be a little bit of a middle ground.

Maybe sometimes he's too strategic or too politically correct. At the same time, he did talk about it. But then he said in the video over two years ago at this point, 26 months that I've been waiting on this episode. Because I'm like, geez, with this type of, he has a reach of probably 25, 30 millions combined on all social media. If he talked about EMS, it would be more. more effective and convince more people than the EMF guy talking about it for 10 years. And I'm like, so this is how large he can or how influential it can be. And so far, nothing.

Radio silence. So is it that he looked into it and said, well, this is mixed data or, and of course, it is a topic where a deep dive takes like six months. It's like super overwhelming to look at it. You have to look. You have to understand engineering. concept, electrical engineering, you have to understand biophysics. It's difficult to make sense of why are certain researchers saying there's no effect and others say there's effects. So there's

politics in there. It's highly corrosive. It's like an explosive topic. So maybe he wanted to stay far away from it. But I'm angry at him because of that. Because of course, you know, the more we wait, the more nothing changes. I hope that eventually we'll see him with a full episode like with the right scientist or the right person. But, you know, yeah, it just shows you it's like even when someone is convinced that there's an effect, it was adamant that this topic even said it this way. I listened to the video a few days ago because I wanted to post it or something. He said, it's not even a controversy that non-native EMLs can impact how our cells function. He said it this way. And yet, I don't think that's correct. There is.

controversy that is, you know, that is fabricated. Like, that is a fake controversy, like, oh, you know, it's mixed results and some people think there's, no, there is no controversy. Because when you review the science and you look at the Yakimenko paper from 2016 about oxidative stress, the out of 100 studies, there's 93 that show oxidative stress. So 93% of the literature around a certain effect, bio-effect, is negative, and only seven show no effect or maybe a positive one. So really? Like you think there's no effect? Look, at least we can say there's an effect and we cannot quantify it, for example,

which is a much more reasonable thing to say. But just my point is long-winded to say, we have Levin that isn't convinced, so therefore, you know, he does nothing about it. We have Euberman that is. convinced there's an effect, and even him doesn't do anything about it. So we're in a bad spot where the amount of courage that it will take for certain people to look at this is tremendous. And I hope that some people look at it. We have, like, I think the best researchers that have looked at it are those that are retired and don't care about the funding anymore.

We have, like, Dr. Marta Herbert on the summit, whose ex-Harvard Medical School, she published a very, good paper in 2013, two-part paper on how plausible is the link between EMFs and autism, talking about brain development, nervous system, maturation. And she was shocked at the scientific literature doing a deep dive for months and looking at, wait a minute, why did no one tell me about that? Because she's a pediatric neurologist, so she should know, right? She was looking at all the possible causes of autism or things that can impair brain development or normal development of a fetus.

And she stumbled upon electromagnetic fields. And she said, there's surely an effect. And she said, my God, this is urgent that we modify how we use this technology. Nothing was done, of course, 12 years later to this day. But it just shows you the reason she wanted to talk about it is that she didn't care anymore about the funding and all these games. And she had courage. And now she's living in the woods and happy. And she's still publishing and self-funded.

That's the only way. It's like, or maybe we'll come from the top, you know, will we see a different NIH, a different HHS with different people that are now there, Batacharya. And we have, you know, we have a different FDA maybe. that was supposed to regulate these things in the first place. In the 1990s, they were mandated to taking care of cell phone safety, never did, and threw the ball away to NIH, did a study, swept it under the rug, and in 2018, the NTP study was published

and swept under the rug by the FDA. So will we see a completely different change of mind from all these authorities? I don't know. I'm not holding my breath. like I cannot operate with the faith with the like immense level of faith that RFK Jr. is going to save everyone and these guys are going to save everyone because even if they want to, the amount of like they're going to have to surmount incredible lobbying power and then an amount of people that are convinced that there's no effect. and all of them need to be red-pilled on the topic. It's like it's super tough.

In a sense, it's tougher than almost than many other topics in environmental medicine that are more mature or more mainstream like, you know, removing food dyes. And these are good. It's just that the non-native EMS are, it's not everyone that is eating red food dye, right? but with non-native EMF, it's almost every citizen and almost everyone on the planet. We could argue everyone on the planet if we talk about the worldwide effects of satellites and, like, everything. But the personal devices, it's a very large fraction of the entire planet that is using these devices on a daily basis. So that's why I've been focusing on this work.

It's like, you know, out of all environmental toxins, it's probably the one where, you have the highest amount of human beings exposed or close to it. So that's why I think it matters. It's not that it matters more, but at least, you know, the attention it gets right now is completely disproportional to the potential risk it can have. Agreed. And even if you want to avoid your exposure, it's really hard,

especially if you live somewhere urban, like good luck avoiding these things. So it's like completely out of your control to a certain extent. Of course, you can protect yourself at a certain level. but by and large, you have to, like, move out of that area in order to avoid those exposures. And then there's also an issue, of course, of the fact that people are addicted to the technology that's ultimately, it's like killing them slowly over time. And so not only you have to deal with lobbyists, but you have people who are like, well, what about my Netflix and what about everything else?

Like, is it going to change? Like, I want my stuff that I've gotten so comfortable and used to having. And, of course, it's made to be addictive as well with the blue light and the Forever Scrolls and whatever else. It's like, you know, we're made to just absolutely want to be on it all day long. And, you know, because we can't see the EMF in their eyes, we don't realize that they're there and they're doing something, but they certainly are. And I also remember learning when I was reading a, reading Fry's work that if you compare the continuous wave, uh, non-native EMFs compared to pulse wave, the pulse waves are much more damaging to biological systems because they can penetrate more deeply. And of course, all of the waves we use are pulsed for Bluetooth Wi-Fi 5-5. etc. So it's like, you know, maybe we would have some options here if we were just to be honest about the state of affairs and the state of the research and like get creative. I truly believe in

human ingenuity. I think if we address the problem and acknowledged it, that we would probably be able to come up with some sort of a compromise or a solution to reduce the toxicity while still giving us access to the things that we've grown to enjoy. And in addition to that, I like, you know, I would love to do research just to test like, you know, maybe you're exposed to these fields, but maybe if you're grounded or you're outside, you know, in sunlight while you're grounded, maybe has much less effect. Like, you know, that could be something that we actually could do that, you know, for some people you can even ground inside.

Like right now I have my foot on a grounding mat that has a line that's running out the window into the yard or like, you know, working outside if it's possible. And that's usually what I tell people to do. Like you work from home, just try to work outside, build like a nice little patio situation so you can see your computer screen. You have an umbrella, like get your feet on the bare grass. Like there's ways to come. kind of mitigate exposures or at least bolster your body against them. But until we, you know,

collectively recognize this as a problem, I think it's really challenging to, you know, create larger scale solutions. And I guess the last thing I'll say is that I'm currently writing a book proposal that hopefully the book will come out next year and it's on light. And so one, at least one or two chapters is going to be on this topic. And one of my best friends is Dr. Gabriel Lyon, who she's teeing me up on like my podcast ring when the book comes out. And Huberman is on the list. So assuming he lets me come on, she's already named drop me multiple times. Hopefully I'll be able to make a little bit of headway in that department. Well, I'm glad to hear that. You know, every time I see a new, I call them influencers, of course, some of people are researchers or I just

say that influencer is kind of a term that sometimes people think, okay, you're taking pictures of yourself like with your Parisian extravaganza vacation with a nice large hat. Like I'm talking about people that have influence online, which is nowadays it could be like RFK is an influencer, I am, you are in a sense. And Uberman has such influence that it would be an incredible stride. But I must say I was impressed with certain people recently featuring EMF for the first time. Dr. Mark Hyman, for years I tried to tell him about it. Eventually I got, you know, almost stonewalled by his team saying, look, we don't think he's the

right person to talk about this topic. which means we don't think it's credible, or we're not sure it's credible. And I didn't, you know, I don't hold it against them. It's tough to navigate. Imagine if he jumps on a topic and realizes later that it's not credible. It hurts its credibility big time. So it's all games and politics and perception.

And that's fine. But recently he did Instagram posts. And of course, his community now is ready to hear about it. And they said, well, of course, I knew this is bad. And he did, I don't think he did a podcast. I'm still trying to get on. that, but there's Dr. Josh Axe and there's many people that are like,

you know, make America healthy again influencers, even, you know, Dale Bigtree, who's big on vaccine safety, did an entire episode on 5G Danger's Light with Tristan Scott from Daylight Computers, which was brilliant.

So I feel like the conversation is opening. And I think it's only a matter of time before Uberman has to jump in because eventually his community will be like, like, well, if you do not address this, you're behind. And he doesn't like to be behind. It likes to be cutting edge about things.

At least he's kind of the guy that will introduce more like cutting edge science topics to the mainstream. Like, yes, when you go outside, your eyes and skin are reading the mitochondrial, you know, mitochondria are reading the environment. And this is like shifting circuit and rhythm. The way that he was able to explain it, change my understanding. He is a good person to communicate these things, but I hope that he can have the courage to feature these things, and even if there's uncertainty, like you can have someone who says there's no effect,

and you can have you on, and you're going to say, no, I think this is incorrect, and less debate, like a less at least debate. And I see that the conversation is changing, and I hope that, you know, even these large influencers will be able to have a conversation that is with the right people. And I think that unfortunately some people

have such an extreme discourse with EMS, whether it's falling into too much conspiratorial where these are waters that are hard to navigate and there's a lot of things that are classified like the use of energy weapons. And when people say things that are hypothesis or theories or that is kind of Latin with, uncertainties and internet, you know, I wouldn't say conspiracy theories, but it's like you don't know,

you don't have the right info. As a journalist, like, I try to stay away from these topics, and I do read about them. People send me all sorts of crazy things, you know, microchipping and mind control, and I read all of it. I just, I digest it, and I'm like, okay, what evidence do I have? is tangible that I can talk about. And this is what I think a lot of these online influencers fear with EMFs is like, will you bring a topic, will Dr. Alexis be on my podcast? And all of a sudden, we have to edit it out because it's too crazy. You know, that's kind of their thinking. They kind of associate the entire topic of EMS with all sorts of sub-topics. Some of them are crazy. Some of them, I think, are pure inventors.

Some of them, I think, are maybe plausible, very scary, but we don't know much. Some of them cannot be verified. And this is kind of this mixed bag of internet stuff that is very, it must be nerve-wracking for some of them that are like trying to navigate it. And they're like, how can I talk about this topic without, you know, without addressing things that are not credible or without regretting it? It's tough. It's tough. I don't. I don't want to excuse them, but at the same time, it is tough. It's just that I wish that, you know, I don't know. Any scientists from the ICBE group or many, many scientists that are active at the moment could be incredible spokespeople for EMS. I think I could be. I don't have the same expertise, but I know a lot. And I just think that, you know, it's just unfortunate that a lot of them seem to be content,

just waiting another 10 years until, you know, it's more mainstream and then I'll address it. I think it's, they're doing a disservice to many people because, of course, in the meantime, we're all exposed and getting, you know, harmed by this technology. Yeah, and I really think, as you kind of alluded to, underlying the cowardice or the lack of courage to speak up on these issues, really, it really boils down to being financially chained to, like, are a really shitty fiat currency that is, like, failing and constantly have to run on this hamster wheel of need to make more money in order to just make ends meet and all both parents are working in a household and the kids are being raised by the schools and everybody's afraid to,

you know, be de-platformed or demonetized because their livelihoods are linked to it. And so I think this is all really boils down to that. Like if you don't have financial independence, it's really hard to stick up for things that you believe in. And that's also why so many people rolled up their sleeves during the jab rollout because they couldn't afford to leave that job. And instead, you know, decided they would be willing to take the chance to sacrifice their health and maybe even their life in some cases in order to do that. And so I think it really boils down to like a deeper issue within the science and the medicine and the academic journal publishing model, everything, is just like, they're all in bed with each other and they're all propped up by our like,

our bad money. And that's also why I'm really excited what Jack is working on with Kevin McKearinen and hopefully I'll be able to contribute as well, building out a new scientific journal model that you're able to publish like in a decentralized fashion. It doesn't cost a fortune to publish it. I always like to say the value it would cost for me to publish in the journal nature is 12,000 bucks as an independent scientist not working at an institution. That's how much it would cost me to publish a single

paper in the journal nature. And of course there's this whole journal industry where it's like publish or perish and if you're not in the top journals then you're not considered as credible for whatever reason. It's just like a whole messed up industry that is completely. completely bonkers if you actually look at like the the way that it works to make money. It basically takes the academic journal industry, basically takes everybody's money and then just profits completely without paying the journal authors without paying the editors without, well, not

the editors, the peer reviewers, rather, all the editors and like the, you know, the people in charge are getting all that money. And they're not even printing journals anymore. It's all online. So like their overhead is extremely low. So it's about time to get rid of that model. And when we have this new model that's based on, like some people are already publishing on substack. For example, Kevin is publishing like on a month to month or a couple months worth of data at a time on his substack.

And he's even had people publishing like the journal Frontiers citing his substack data around he's sequencing like Canada's genomes. But like, so he's already making a little bit of headway there. But we really have a vision for a future journal model that you're able to publish in relatively easily. There's going to be probably like a community notes aspect as well as a direct peer review. but the peer reviewers are going to be paid. They're not going to be anonymous. And it's going to be a market-driven system whereby as you review papers, and if you review a paper that ends up holding up and it has great data and it ends up

influencing, you know, a lot of positive things, that you get a little gold star next to your name, that you're able to then, you know, charge more to be a peer reviewer for other papers. And in that way, it motivates people to be good peer reviewers to not engage in, like, shady behaviors. Like currently, if you're, you know, in a competing lab with somebody, you might decide. side, if you're a peer reviewer for their paper, to take extra long on it so that your paper can go through first, and then you're holding up there from being, so it's like this weird competitive aspect to the

science versus just publishing for the sake of supporting humanity and understanding reality and like forming, you know, a clear picture of what's going on. So I think if we can fix the journal model, it's going to actually change a lot about how science is conducted and how medicine is conducted as well because we're going to be able to get data out faster. It's going to be reviewed. It's going to be implemented as well more quickly. So we're going to get feedback on that much more quickly than the current model because also in the current model, people are encouraged to tell a whole story throughout a paper. So it could take two, three years to get enough data to tell a whole story about a certain project. And so that means that that data is not available to clinicians and other scientists to

actually act upon for a much longer time period. And it's really slowing down the wheels of innovation. Wow. Well, you know, this is like an area where I'm vastly unaware, but I'm very happy you tell me that because of course, you know, I can't look at all areas of society that are kind of being rightfully so disrupted by maybe new models that are completely independent and, you know, created by users for humanity without the possibility of cheating or playing games. You know, it gives me hope, like, yes, we need, we absolutely need these changes to be made. And who knows, maybe this is one of the ways we'll be able to study these impossible to study topics like EMFs and run these experiments and find safer ways, safer frequencies, safer things. There's so many, there's so much research and development that could be done to make these things safer. So it gives me hope what you're telling me, and I hope that it's going to see the light of day. and I want to read more about that, so I'll definitely follow.

I did hear about Kevin McEarney a little bit, so I'm curious to see how this could completely disrupt the journal industry, which in the end might end up joining the party if they see their bottom line crumbling. That's always how it goes, right? So maybe you're going to have some of these organizations going to be like, no, no, we're going to do the decentralized stuff before others, because it's going to become, you know, a competitive advantage. And, oh, yeah, we had the idea before everyone else. And we always said it was a good idea, right? It's always like that.

So everyone's going to shift. And I feel like this is the kind of same that could happen with technology. Did you talk to the D.Light computer? You probably, you heard about it. I think Jack Cruz was one of the first talking about them. Yeah, I have one. I'm good friends with Tristan, so yes. Yeah.

So Tristan is great. And it's not just to talk about one company, But what I like about it, I was on a call with the CEO and creator Engine Kata. Originally, I think a year and a half ago, I should have published like the first ever interview on the internet with him just for, you know, the sake of having exclusivity. But I think I was, I think if I recall correctly, he showed me the tablet that was, you know, this display that is black and white. And yet it refreshes and has the same frame per second as a modern screen, which is. essentially old technology that they were able to combine with other technologies to make it possible. But they're essentially the first product to act like this, essentially.

And I think they're going to patent it and everything. But when he showed me that, it was like, wait a minute, this is not possible that this exists. And I was in a coffee shop. It was so random. I don't know why he contacted me or how he found me. So anyway, all that to say that, when I saw that, I'm like, wait a minute, you're a random guy that had a series of refusals from Silicon Valley investors, and they laughed at you when you said

you're going to create a black and white tablet, right, in a society that wants more color and, you know, 4K and 8K and 12K stuff. And then he decided, no, I'm going to launch my own tablet. And people laughed at him again, because, of course, yes, oh, really, you're going to go to Malaysia and outsource things and create a new display and create your, you know,

all of these steps can be done by one or multiple people now compared to a few decades ago it was completely impossible. You needed millions of dollars to get started. So of course, he did invest a lot of years of his life, but it just made me aware that the moment is now where the tech industry is going to start feeling disrupted by random people who decide, you know what, the tablets are toxic. We're going to create at least a safer product. Still, has the wireless, they haven't started, you know, addressing that. But when it comes to blue light, no blue light when you use it outside. Very soft amber light that I think is much better than most displays out there when you use it in the dark. So it's a vast improvement. And just that

will start disrupting things. And I think we're going to see it with displays. We're going to see it with, we're going to see basically a diversification of the market, which is great. Where, these companies that put health first or try to, to the best of their ability, will be trusted much more by people listening to this podcast compared to Samsung, Apple. And if they're not careful, they're going to end up like, you know, the next blogbuster. And I'm talking about the brand blockbuster where you use to rent VHS in case, you know, people under 20 are listening and are like, what are you talking about? So, you know, Kodak or these companies that still exist for,

a few things, but, you know, they're like a mere fraction of where they were at a surgeon time. And I don't remember exactly the story of Kodak, but I think they kind of laughed when they saw the first digital camera that could do like under one megapixel. And they said, this looks super ugly. This is pathetic. And then, well, a few years later, they were almost going under, you know, just because they didn't see that the disruption is there and that things will change fast. So can things change fast for like our cell phone and cell towers and things like that? Well, if we look at history, it can. Within 10 years, like even if, I don't know, I'm going to give an example, a lot of people will be bashing, but like gluten-free stuff. The gluten-free stuff is like

Latin with gluten. There's all sorts of problems. But the awareness around maybe you have a problem with wheat that might have been created by our toxic environment and whatnot, but that's another topic and in itself. But that problem, I feel like, was nowhere at the early 2000s. And then 10 years later, it was like, oh, yeah, of course. Everyone has a gluten sensitivity or allergy. So things can change impressingly fast. And I think maybe even faster now. So can we improve things in society with within a few years, if all of a sudden everyone realizes at the same time that it's a problem, the companies kind of scramble and say, my God, we need a safer product right now, and we're going to launch something and then they try to kill each other for market shares.

Maybe it can change fast. So let's hope that it does. It starts with awareness. But I feel like when you tell me these things about different parts of society that are being disrupted by new ideas and how someone is trying to launch, like, no, let's completely change the publication process. How crazy is this idea? When you tell me that it's like, oh my God, this is overwhelming.

And yet I'm more convinced now than 10 years ago that is possible to do that. And that maybe the journal editors won't see it coming. And it will be their demise. And good for them. Good on them. They're going to lose their job and be sorry about it. But if you don't see that people are fed up with this game of scientific publication and how rigged it is and how the academia is just linked with industries and, you know,

with, you know, chasing the next paper and that the NIH just approves things that are already predetermined where results have already been done and you kind of give, you know, regurgitate something that the NIH wants to see. It just doesn't work. It doesn't help anyone. There's no original ideas anymore. So I hope that all these disruptive things on all levels of society can make this entire topic, at least of EMFs, like much safer within a few years. I think we have to focus on the fact that it can be fast. And let's not be focused on the fact that, oh, no, it's going to take 100 years before it gets safer because I don't think we have 100 years.

And that's another, you know, doomsday topic. But, you know, things are not improving on many levels with help population. So I hope that things can be made much safer, much faster, and we can clean up all aspects of environmental toxins and include EMF in the mix, make technology much safer. Hopefully within a few years, like let's focus on the fact that it needs to be fast, at least. Like, there's no other way to think about this, I think.

Yeah, and I mean, the other alternative is that the sun decides to help us along and give us a massive solar flare, a full switch, And then all the tech is just like, it's gone overnight. So that's also a possibility that's not entirely unlikely, actually. Yeah, this is another. And it's funny last week I was listening to a few videos from, what is this name? Stefan Burns, who's a geophysicist, I think, talking about the Earth's energy, solar mass ejection and the risks of, you know, sunspots and all of this. And I was like, oh, my God, here we go.

I like can I can I digest this information right now I'm like okay yeah I can but one video and then I'm done you know I won't you know go with a series of like 50 videos where I'm going to be like oh what is happening with the like this is scary stuff this is another thing that could greatly disrupt civilization and geez but anyway yeah it made me think of that I think it's an important discussion like how reliant we are on technology and how even natural disasters like that could be could really, really disrupt satellites and technology, and we rely on this stuff so much. And what I'll say, though, that was interesting,

and I'll send you a video after that. I have Battress Golem, Kostov, and this one you'll like, because Stefan Burns is the only guy that I've ever heard talk about how electronic pollution, not only from power lines, power line harmonics. There's a special term that it's very well established, that with power lines, you do create disruptions

in the electrical grid around the Earth, the ionosphere and different layers, and he's very, very precise on its thinking on this, on how much we are impacting the Earth's electric systems that don't have a lot of mass and are easily disrupted by external factors. So he also adds that, you know, there is an excellent,

of the risks that we have these major solar events and one of the reasons is our use of cell towers and electronics and things like that. So kind of charging or disrupting in ways that are very hard to predict the ionosphere and also we're adding mass in the form of satellites to the ionosphere. So it was very eye-opening because he kind of puts it all together

and that's the first time. I know that Archer Furstenberg, who unfortunately passed away and it was so, so, so sad to hear about his passing. I did an Instagram post and, you know, so many people responded. But his legacy lives on and Stefan Burns must be my age, like 30-something. And I'm happy to see that he's gathering attention. He has like hundreds of thousands of people on YouTube listening to him.

And people in the comments are like, yeah, these satellites, it's crazy. It's crazy. So there's, you know, it's not people that are very knowledgeable about EMFs that join this. They look at him as a geophysicist expert and people that want to look at space weather. But people are just understanding this EMF problem in another way.

People that are looking at the planetary electrical grid and how it is impacted. So that's another angle. These are other people in society that have different types of concerns, but they are aligned with anyone that has concerns over health or, you know, the health of the population on many levels or just how smartphones are impacting us. They think in terms of like larger systems,

but I guess it's just, it's a, it's like you have the macro that is impacted and the micro is also impacted. And if you zoom in the mitochondria and the very micro in the quantum, it's also impacted. All levels are impacted by EMF. So I found that fascinating. And, And I do hope that you're going to have a lot of geophysicists that can sound the alarm. I don't know how much this is progressing. And if geophysicists will be able to stop things like the Starlink madness and other companies that want to launch so many satellites, it's completely out of control. And, you know, that's where I have reserves around, you know, some people with Make America Healthy again. They're like, oh, yeah, everything is good.

and we're dismantling corruption and all this. Look, we're going to miss things. I think one big thing that is miss is you have Musk and Trump working together to uncover some corruption of the government. Musk is behind Starlink. And he said that EMS are not, yeah, and Neurlink and some dodgy stuff there. So, you know, for some things I could say I agree with him, government spending, corruption, there's some things that I saw. I'm like, yeah, okay, that's probably good that they include. covered this, it's probably good that they put, you know, a grenade or a dynamite in the government

and try to blow things up. But at the same time, he's directly behind what I perceive to be one of the biggest risks we have to humanity. So it's a bit of a mixed feeling. If I met him, I would not be smiling, you know, I would be like, I would try to make him understand, like, have you talked to geophysicists around the impact of, you know, satellites in the atmosphere, at least to put the topic on his mind. And I don't, some people say no, he knows and he's, you know, hurting the planet. And I don't know if he knows. But for sure, he's one of the guys that could make a difference in saying, look, we want

to roll this out, except now we realize we might be screwing up the world. It's huge. It's another of these, one of these concerns that is like, I sure hope things that don't break. I sure hope things don't break and we don't know what they're doing. And then Starlink is one company and they're deciding things that might have an impact on the planet. And the last time I checked, we're kind of stuck on planet Earth for the moment. Like the Mars thing isn't, you know, we're not near taking this big spaceship beautiful with plants inside and auto-sufficient stuff and just leaving the planet because it's too polluted or because we put too many satellites and junk

in that in the atmosphere and the atmosphere that we're like, okay, let's do a wally and let's just, you know, just go ahead and leave the planet. Like last time I checked, we're not, it will not happen in my lifetime, to be honest, is my prediction. Yeah, I might be wrong, but you know. I think the paradox there is that we will need to get to a point where collectively we understand how to treat a planet if we want to stay on it long term. So in order to have the technology and the wherewithal to colonize Mars, for example, we would need to get to the point where we are no longer externalizing harm to our current planet. Otherwise, we're just going to do the same thing to Mars.

But the paradox is when we get to that point, we'll no longer need to go to Mars because we'll just figure out a way how to be in harmony with Earth. And there's just so much I have. I have so many places to pick with Elon. He creates these electric cars are also terrible on the EMF scale. Like they're poisonous to bodies and humans. And obviously the rare earth metals and everything with the batteries, ethics behind that is a whole other part of the story.

And of course, the neuralink and the Starlink. And it's like this, there's like a handful of technocrats that are deciding the fate of the planet. It's like, who put these people in charge? Why do they think that they're entitled to decide what happens to eight billion people? It's absolutely mind-blowing. I agree. And when, and it's not like Musk is silent about EMFs, he's specifically adamant that there's no health impact on Joe Rogan years ago. And I don't think if I, I cannot remember if I posted that clip, but he was like, you know, oh, no, no, I cannot do an impersonation. I was trying, but, you know, I won't pull it up. But he's so bizarre in how he talks anyway. I'm never sure if he's stone or something. He's like super bizarre. But anyway, Musk was like, oh, no, there's like you could strap cell phones to your face. It wouldn't do nothing.

Like it's essentially no impact. And even Rogan was like, really? Really? No impact? Like multiple cell phone? It was like, yeah, okay. Okay. It wasn't sure.

It wasn't convinced. But, you know, is he seeing that because it's good for business or is he saying that because he's convinced? Maybe he's one, he's like 11. You know? He's like, oh no. No effect. I don't want to hear about it.

And to be honest, if you tell me if I look into it, then I'll have a massive headache for decades of trying to see how do we launch, like, what do we do with Starlink? It's like one of his favorite things to talk about is like Starlink, connectivity. So it goes against everything he does almost. So, you know, if I were him, would I, you know, I think I would act differently, but I wouldn't be Elon Musk. We're just, you know, we're, we don't have the same same set of values.

and I don't think, I think that he has, he says that he has, like, he wants to save humanity. It's like, oh, yeah, I'm going to join Trump. We're going to save the citizens. Some of the actions are aligned with that, but, you know, a lot of them, I think he has either blind spots or he's just willing to be blind towards certain things. and it just makes me think that, you know, I don't know, we absolutely need to also continue the satellite conversation. It's like even if we move cell towers away from schools and make the devices safer, what are we doing to the earth? And it has to be studied. And it's like we have to study it like 100 years ago.

So I hope maybe with the new scientific processes that are in place where we're going to be able to you know, publish and collaborate. It's like, I do feel like humanity has so many smart people. Like, I didn't hear about your work or the first time I heard about it was maybe like a few months ago and I listened to you and, you know, I listened to Stefan Burns. I didn't know two weeks ago. And I'm like, wow, thank God we have these people. But you're not alone.

There's like a million of you and I and probably millions. that are super intelligent, great care for humanity, are able to come up with solutions, and just have the right type of ethics, and I don't know what it is exactly, but how could I describe it? Kindness, care, I think it's just being a normal human,

because I don't know how else to operate in the world. That's just how I was born with realizing, wait a minute, if there's a problem, we need to solve it, and you probably shouldn't hurt your neighbor and, like, basic stuff. I don't know if it's, you know, my parents who taught me that or if I had some sort of, you know, ingrained kindness in my DNA. But this is the same thing I find in you.

I find in, you know, Jack Cruz in his own way. That's like, this guy wants to, he's like on a mission to try to save people, even if it means, you know, being a renegade, being a, alone. It's a sort of sacrifice, but also it has to come with like kindness. With Cruz, it's bluntness and kindness. It's an acquired taste, but I do love Jack and we talked several times. But, you know, with all my colleagues and everyone on this movement, it's like people that are kind and want to save the planet, I don't think Musk is on that team. I think he's,

I don't find kindness. I do find it in RFK Jr. but its politics will see how much he can change things but I do see it in Batacharya I do see it in certain people that are now in governmental positions that makes me happy

because at least if we have people that have their heart in the right place maybe we're going to see a shift in the right direction this is the type of kindness we need because I don't think I don't think you're able to take decisions like launch these satellites

if you're very kind and think about the implications of your work, you have like, I don't know if it's the right word would be having a conscience. I mean, in a sense, it's like, you know, you know, basic conscience? Like, my actions can impact the earth for generations. Like, maybe I should be careful. I don't know. Maybe I just, I don't know why certain people don't think that way. Maybe they're just, you know, focused so much on their own agenda.

maybe their ego. I don't know exactly what it is, but I feel like there's so many people that are kind and have these ethics. We just need to have them collaborate together and things can improve fast. Like McKiernan, independent scientists, people that I spoke to in my summit are so kind.

They're like, I'm like, these are the best people in the world. I love them. And the scientists, I must say, those that have this type of kindness, it also comes with a massive amount of humility, which is required to change your mind and not fall into this whole game of, you know, I'm chasing money and it's okay if I sell my soul

because in the end, you know, at least I have, you know, a noble and I have, you know, stuff that is really exciting to own, like a trophy. You know, people that have this conscience or kindness, couldn't care less about the trophy. Maybe it would be good, but it's not, it wouldn't supersede their, you know, their willingness to help, to be, to be kind.

Like, they wouldn't do that, I think. Or eventually they would wake up and say, oh, my God, no, no, no, I cannot do that anymore. So they wouldn't, you know, play that game of being completely blind or not listen to people that tell you, yes, Levin, EMS matter. Like, you have to listen to it. I don't think he spent, I would predict, I don't know him. I don't think he spent more than a few hours looking at papers for non-native EMFs.

If he spent 100 hours looking at the best papers, it would probably be in shock for years. Like, it would be a personal shock to him because he has, he has the mind. he has the intelligence to understand the implications. It would be blown away. And maybe it's just like, I don't want to look at it because I fear that if I start looking at it, I will not be able to go back and then, you know, I'll lose everything I worked for.

Well, I mean, his claim was that it's not that he doesn't necessarily think they're important. He just thinks they don't have anything to do with bioelectricity. But then I was like, well, there's dozens of papers showing that non-native EMFs can affect calcium channel and the movement of like the calcium ions through the channels. And I was like, isn't that a major mechanism that is, you know, is believed to be behind bioelectricity? Yeah. I don't think he answered that. But I want to make sure we also mentioned about like the FCC and the FDA and in the international body that governs around like non-native MF and radio frequency exposure is that they're like myopically focused on thermal effects.

And they'll say, oh, there's thermal effects. Those are harmful. But any non-thermal effects, no evidence, no proof. like we're not even going to bother looking at that. And that would include all of these kind of ion channel effects and mitochondrial function, these types of things. It's an invention. The way that I spoke with someone on the summit called Dr. Paul Heru, who's from the McGill University,

he's one of the only researchers that looked at the mitochondrial effect of EMFs. And there's a lot of stuff that he's doing in his lab that is non-published. He did talk during the summit, he will talk about experiments that. he's doing to find which frequencies are the most harmful to cells and things like that. So this is not published work, but I'm excited that, you know, he can look at it. And he does believe that, you know, he said, I asked him, can we make wireless safer? Like, could we create a Wi-Fi that would be safer? Because that's a slippery slope.

A lot of activists are like, no, no, no, no, no. We have to be against Wi-Fi. I just ask a question, right? Do you think it could be possible? He's an engineer and he knows biology. He knows the biophysics. He said, well, I have to do the experiments. Like, you wouldn't need the proper funding,

but he thinks it might be possible. Or we could use infrared communication. And then I asked him about Li-Fi, using, you know, instead of Wi-Fi, you have light to communicate. Like your light bulbs would transfer light information. And even when lights are turned off, because it would use, you know,

non-visible frequencies of light, to, you know, a receiver on your laptop. So imagine in every room, every light would be connected. But I said, you know, I was contacted by the, it was a very bizarre thing. He never responded back, but he reached out to me. He's one of the developers of Li-Fi. I think he's the president or something of that technology. And he said, I think it would be a great alternative to wireless.

You know, do you want to talk about it? And I said, yes, I'm excited. But I do have, like, questions about the safety. because of the study of light and like the pulsation rate might impact like the flicker might impact biology how do we know it's not impacting circuit

in rhythms for example even if it's invisible it might be visible to other parts of the body including you know my understanding is sensors on the skin sensors in the eye even in invisible frequencies frequencies that cannot be perceived by our eye camera or you know skin camera I guess or sensing ability

and you know so far I haven't been able to arrange a call or anything, but what Paul Heru told me is, well, you know, there's no reason for them to study any of these things, and for sure we need to involve the right people. So in other words, you know, I don't trust any of these new technologies either because they're not developed with the right expertise where we would take great care to try to minimize how much we see biological systems responding. And I don't even know if it's feasible in the light spectrum. And if it's not feasible, try telling that to the president of a company that maybe he has worked on for 20 years.

Like, look, your company and your dream, well, I'm sorry, it's shattered and it's unsafe. And it will also always be unsafe. So therefore, maybe you can retire and just stop. Just stop your life's work. It's a tough sell, you know, but sorry, I digress, but I felt like it was super fascinating talking about Li-Fi and don't fall into thinking, you know, that it will be any safer. I wouldn't trust it right now the way at least is being rolled out. Yeah, and I mean, I think we just take so much for granted as being normal as humans in this technological era. Like, for example, the fact that, like, we can go on our phone, go on to Google, type something in, search it.

there's an internet that's sending information to our Wi-Fi router that's then sending information to our phone via light. Like the information is being carried on the light wave to our phone and then we're seeing the information. But I'm just thinking to myself, how much information is like running into our bodies, going through our bodies being interpreted by ourselves as like a jumbled mass of like whatever it is. Like our bodies don't know how to interpret any of this because it's all novel stimuli. It's all novel inputs. So I'm just thinking like, I don't know if there's actually a wireless way to do. do it without messing up. We need to do the studies. Exactly like what the research you were talking about was saying. It's like we don't know, but there's a lot of assumptions like underlying. And

for whatever reason in this industry like the FCC, et cetera, for whatever reason, it's like it's safe until proven unsafe when it should always be unsafe until proven safe. Like I don't know where this new paradigm came from, but it's completely unethical. A hundred percent. And this is really what will have to change and why, you know, I feel with 5G, some people woke up, like, wait a minute, this has been rolled out without any biological studies prior to the introduction of the technology. Yes, just like was the case with 4G, LTE, 3G, 2G, 1G, and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, right? And people are like, wait, what? You're telling me, like, none of it was tested when, in a sense, we didn't do the right type of testing

before rolling out this entire tech in the first place. So it's not just the 5G, you know, and they're working on 6G and infinite amount of Gs anyway. So all of it needs to be changed. How we roll out new technologies to humanity. It just doesn't work the way that we're doing it right now, especially when we have technologies that are bioactive, that have a biological effect.

It needs to be used in a very prudent way. So, yeah, I don't know. Totally agree. And I guess we've been going for a while. I don't know. It's just two hours almost, but I'd feel like we could probably keep talking for a while. But I mean, do you want to talk a little bit about what people can expect at the summit? And then we'll wrap it up for now.

Maybe we'll do another episode in the future. Sounds good. Yeah, it's been a pleasure. You know, I really have these longer conversations. A lot of people ask me, what are EMFs? And then, you know, what are? But I like getting into, like, trying to kind of, Connect the dots. I love it. But with the summit, you know, it is an event that is educational.

April 10th to 15. You have 18 different speakers that are pre-recorded interviews that are presented for free during these six days. Dr. Paul Hiru, Marta Herbert, most researchers that I talked about are very, very fascinating. And they talk especially with a focus on unborn fetuses, young children, and teenagers. So if you're a parent, a grandparent, or just an individual that is looking to protect yourself, this is great information to learn about the biology and learn about the mitigation strategy. So there's a lot of talk around what to do about it, how to minimize smartphone radiation, how to maybe not use Wi-Fi and use wired connections instead, what to do. Because in the end, yes, there are studies showing, yes, the towers affect us and the satellites,

but there's a lot of things that you should do with your devices to try to mitigate your immediate environment, and it will make a difference. We shouldn't, you know, throw our hands up in the air and just say, oh, you know, it's hopeless because of the satellites. The satellites are one of your concerns, but there are many other concerns that you can, in fact, make a big difference once you start mitigating these devices.

So that's really the main message of the summit, And this year, we do have a talk with RFK Jr. that I recorded back in 2024 when he was during his presidential campaign. And he talks about the corruption at the FCC. And in fact, one thing I just reviewed the interview a few weeks ago and was super excited. He said, you know, we need to take the top half of the FCC and just show them the door. I'm like, okay, well, let's see if this happens. I know they're doing sweeping reform at the HHS right now. And basically, I asked him, you know, how can we change the regulations if everyone at the FCC is like no effect, no effect?

Repeating, there's no effect. And of course, the heads of the FCC in throughout history have been people from the lobbying group of the industry or directly from industry, from telecoms. And he said, well, we need to change the staff. We need to change the staff for people who are not within the industry, they don't want to go with the industry, and maybe we'll have to fire 50% of all people. I'm like, okay, well, that's extreme. But if it's what it takes, let's see if they can do that in the next few years

and completely re-haul the FCC or give the mandate of cell phone safety to maybe a third party, a completely independent body that they create. Whatever happens, I hope that we'll see that change. And this summit is also an invitation of learning about the latest science and joining this movement, just being informed about these things if you care about these things. And also just trying to gather the information, how will you talk to your family about these things? And this is a tough sell. The tough part is taking action, changing your ways, changing your habits, but also trying to get your spouse on board, your kids.

And it's a tougher conversation, but we do address a lot of. the psychology behind that and trying to make easy changes at home that, you know, are easier for your loved ones to digest and to accept. Yeah, and I mean, especially for the, for kids, like the brain isn't fully myelinated until around 28 years old, and myelum is this protective sheet that covers the entire central nervous system essentially. And that means that kids are more, you know, susceptible to harm from non-NATVMS, from artificial light. And so it's really, really important to advocate in this department to help protect them because otherwise we're sending them up for a lifetime of health issues and I mean we already see health issues chronic health

issues cropping up in young kids and it's just you know absolutely heartbreaking so anything we can do to help spread this message is going to be really helpful and I'm really glad you're having the summit I think it's going to be wonderful I can't wait to check it out myself and I also think this podcast was just a wealth of information and little rabbit holes for people to go down and so I hope everybody enjoyed it but just really want to thank you for your time Nick, this was so fun. I would definitely love to chat again. I think we have like a really good conversational style that made it really fun and engaging and like two hours just went by like that. I agree. It was just looking at the time. I'm like, uh-oh, I have plenty of work to do before the

weekend. I'm like, uh-oh, I had too much fun. But you know, I do enjoy these. It's one of my favorite parts in my work. I don't enjoy as much sitting in front of a computer, answering emails and thinking about finances and marketing and pages and things. Instead of having a good conversation, it's, I'm firing up on all cylinders. I would love to be on again and have another chat next time. Love it. Thank you so much. And again, for everybody listening, go check out the show notes if you want the link to the summit.

Also to Nick's socials. You'll find his information there. And we'll hope to see you there. So with that, we'll close it out. Thanks again, Nick, for your time. And have a great weekend. Thank you, you too. Bye.