The Hidden Cost of Wireless Technology with Dr. Olle Johansson

Welcome to Integrative Medicine with Dr. Leland Stillman, the podcast where we explore the best of East and West, old and new, conventional and unconventional, in search of answers to medicine's toughest cases and most difficult problems. This podcast is for informational purposes only. Diagnostics and therapeutics discussed on this podcast may or may not be right for you, so talk to a qualified practitioner before taking action based on what you learn here. If you'd like to become a patient at my practice, go to stillmanmd.com to schedule a complimentary discovery call. Thank you for listening and welcome to today's episode. Good morning everyone, Dr. Stillman here. I'm excited to be joined by Dr. Ole Johansen. Dr. Johansen is an expert in electromagnetic frequencies, one of the few, I would say, currently in academia Uh, we connected over that because there's such a small world of us who are concerned about the clear and present threat that EMF posed to life on planet Earth. And so today I'm excited to learn about his journey to researching EMF and talk about practical steps people can take today in 2025 and beyond to help solve what I think is a very serious threat. And I don't mean to engage in hyperbole, I really believe this, to life on planet Earth. So welcome, Dr. Johansson, to the podcast. Am I saying your name right, by the way?

Yes, you do. Thank you very much. It's a great honor to be on your podcast. So let's carry on.

I like to start by asking everyone who they are and where they're from.

Well, my name is, as you heard, Ule Johansson, and I worked my whole life here in Stockholm, Sweden. I joined the Karolinska Institute many, many years ago, and I also worked at the Royal Institute of Technology for a number of years. And as you said, I started off in the neurosciences. I know a little bit about the brain, the spinal cord, and the peripheral nerves in the body. And then 1977, I got interested in effects both human medicine as well as biology regarding man-made artificial electromagnetic fields. And that accelerated into the 1980s when I got more and more interested in people that complained in front of computer screens and other visual display units that they got skin irritation, skin rashes, pricking pain. Redness, heatness, and so on. And at that time they were called electrical allergy people, but today we call them persons with a functional impairment or disability, electrohypersensitivity.

How old were you when you decided to go into science?

Then I was exactly— let me think now— 20 years of age, and that was at the beginning of the medical school at the Karolinska Institute. And the second term, I met my to-be supervisor for PhD studies, and from there on, I got more and more interested in the neurosciences. And as I said, a number of years later on, I entered also into the effects of electromagnetic fields.

What was it that prompted you to go into science? What made you passionate about it? And you said medical school. I don't know what it's like in Sweden, but here medical school and a PhD are different tracks. What was it like and what is it like in Sweden?

That's definitely the same here. You know, there are different tracks and to become a medical doctor, that's a great achievement, of course. And a challenge, but I was fascinated, especially by my supervisor, but also about the entire field, and he was a microscopist, especially electron microscopy, and I thought that was cool and interesting, and, but you know, it's really just a stretch of coincidences, and I remember I even called my mother and asked her if she would be happy with me becoming a PhD rather than an MD, and she said, Oh yeah, that's fine, you know.

So, but what specifically about science drove you? What drew you? Was there any— and I love to ask this question— was there any experience, a moment in time when you thought, this is the thing?

Well, that would actually go back all the way until when I was around 4, 5, 6, 7 years of age. I was extremely interested in using my brain. To think, reflect, contemplate, and I read every technical or medical or biological text I could find. So I was sort of preparing myself, without even understanding it, to become a scientist later on. And sometimes, and that's too much really to say, but sometimes I wonder whether scientists real academic scientists, are they kind of born into their trade? Can anyone become a scientist? Maybe not, I don't know. And that's the same, you know, like with indigenous people, they talk about the navigators in the tribe, and that is only, you know, like one person per village, not everyone, it's just one that has the genetic makeup to become a navigator over the oceans, for instance.

You're talking about Polynesians?

Yeah, for instance, yeah. And here we are talking about mental travelers or navigators in science, and maybe you are predisposed to become one. But as I say, it's a bit much to say. I mean, probably anyone could do it.

Who encouraged you? In your early life to pursue learning, knowledge, and science?

Well, there were a number of teachers, I would say, that saw me and gave me opportunities and challenges, books, texts, whatever. And so they saw that I was kind of different, special maybe even, I don't know. And, but at the same time, you put yourself beside the normal activities. I've never been interested, like, in sports. That just doesn't sing with me. So suddenly you were a loner, and all the other kids, they were playing along, and I felt as I was looking from the outside in.

Absolutely. I know what you mean. Your early career, you said you started in neuroscience. What was your specific area of research and what got you curious about the brain?

Yeah, I mean, we worked with so-called peptide-containing nerve cells, but also other cell types, both within the central as well as the peripheral nervous system. And this is actually extremely important because we were— I shouldn't maybe say we, but my supervisor and the the PhD students together, we were extremely successful. We published constantly, you know, there could be like a publication every second week and in journals where people dream, wet dreams to be published in like Science, Nature, Brain Research, Neuroscience and so on. And few can ever be published there, you know, but that was a regular feature and we constantly met with Nobel laureates or people that were to become Nobel Prize winners. That was every day, and that was important because when I started to study the effects of electromagnetic fields, some opponents said that, "No, he don't know anything about electromagnetic fields or science or anything." And then I could, you know, pop up and say, "Hey, could you please look at my CV?" And I would ask opponents, "How many papers do you have?" in these kind of journals, and that actually effectively silenced them because they realized that that kind of criticism was not going to be correct. And so it was very, very important I had had this previous career, if you call it like that, and I could show them that I really had the best of diplomas in academic science.

What specifically about the area of, I believe you said peptide-containing neurons?

Yeah.

Was so groundbreaking that you were getting these publications so rapidly in such high-level journals?

Well, it was a completely new field and a few field that really stimulated imagination and among, and we're talking about thousands of different molecules and a peptide, by the way, is a short strain of amino acids. They're like a small cousin to polypeptides or even bigger proteins. And Among these peptides, you would find the very famous opiate ligands called enkephalins and endorphins. And we were mapping them out, showing that inside the brain, the spinal cord, the peripheral nervous system, as well as in other, like, hormone-containing cell systems, such peptides were to be found. And people were extremely excited about it, and still people are very excited about it. And it's very rewarding, I would say, to sit by the laptop and you work and then ping, something happens and you see that one of your old papers is cited again and again and again and again, you know. So it's still a very active field and it opens also up possibilities to construct other types of medicines in the future and so on, you know. Yes.

Peptides are one of the really big burgeoning fields. I didn't actually know that you started there, but I'm curious, around what years were you publishing on peptides?

Oh, let me think. It would be around, um, 1973, '75, somewhere there. And it was quite very early, uh, which also explains why we had success because, uh, for many years we were kind of rather alone on the arena and then more and more people came aboard, of course.

Peptides are all the rage now in integrative and functional medicine. We hear them, you know, being used by patients, colleagues, other practices.

Yeah.

I'm very curious, are you still keeping an eye on the peptide world, particularly in like the integrative medical world at all?

Yes, I do. And, uh, um, if we had resources, we would of course be very interested to pursue studies to see whether man man-made electromagnetic fields like from cell phones or Wi-Fi routers, power lines, and so on, would they have an impact on these specific subsets of peptide-containing nerve cells as well as endocrine cells, immune cells, etc.? But so far we haven't been able to do anything really. So, but I'm keeping an eye on it, yes.

Are you familiar with the cavacin peptides?

Just by name, I would say yes.

Got it. I'm very fascinated by this area of research because I think peptides are one of the things that I see, um, you know, buying people more time with tough diagnoses, tough diseases. And I think they're going to become more and more part of what we do. But yeah, how did you go from peptide-containing neuron neuroscience to EMF? What was the, the trajectory?

Well, for Yeah, first I had my dissertation presented 1983, and then after that, it's customary at the Karolinska Institute that you kind of change the area that you work on, so you should not compete with your previous PhD supervisor. And one way to change there was to go from rodents like mice, rats, guinea pigs to humans. So that was one step. And also doing that, we were suddenly restricted when it came to material. We couldn't get a skin biopsy, we could get a biopsy from the oral mucosa and from the vaginal mucosa on women, that was about it, because people don't want to give away a bit of their brain or the heart or something, and I was naive, to be honest. I thought human skin was completely investigated and understood, but that was not the case at all. So it turned out that, again, whatever we did, people were extremely fascinated and applauded us, and we could easily publish a length of different scientific publications. And then the step was actually a radio program. One evening, I've told this story many times before, but one evening when I was about to leave the laboratory, It was around 8 o'clock in the evening, and I'm not an avid radio listener, I wouldn't say that, but I heard the radio was on, so I went to turn it off, and since I walked pretty slowly, I heard a woman talking about the need for neurology investigations for electrical allergy and these were new terms to me, so I kind of stopped and started to listen to her, and her name was, or is, Kajsa Wedin, and she represented the trade unions on the west coast of Sweden in the town of Göteborg, and I thought, hmm, I'm not a clinical neurologist, but being a neuroscientist, maybe that's close enough, so the day after I called her and said, maybe I could help you, maybe we can take skin biopsies and investigate what happens when people complain about skin irritation and rashes and heat sensations in front of computer screens. And she was extremely enthusiastic and said, "Oh yeah, I'm going to take a physicist with me," she said, "and I will travel to Stockholm and we will meet you, we will sit down, and we will talk about possible projects that we could pursue." And of course, with the trade unions backing it, that meant that we could also potentially get money to do research. And in the beginning, money was not a problem, actually. We can do quite a number of different investigations, often in a small scale, but still very important and valid. And again, they are constantly cited now, in spite of the fact they were published, like, in the end of the '80s, beginning of the 1990s. And then we came into a study where we interviewed 4 electrohypersensitive persons, and we had collected a number of different scientists including chemists, psychologists, psychiatrists, allergologists, physicists, dentists, and so on. So we were like 20-25 people, and then we had these 4 electrohypersensitive persons and to make a long story short, that discussion was fantastic, very, very interesting, and we were then sent back from Göteborg up to Stockholm again, and we should start to take skin biopsies and investigate whether there were any markers, like peptide markers, that could be used to differentiate the electrohypersensitive skin from other people, normal healthy volunteers, as well as people with classical skin illnesses. And so we started with that, but the odd thing was that when we then started to present very interesting results, we were not welcomed any longer into this big project, in spite of the fact that we were the only ones that had anything of interest and value to talk about. And so something political happened, and I still don't know what, but I could just see that we were completely shoved off, off from this big project, and we were never reinvent— invited again, you know.

That's a similar story to those I've heard, not firsthand, But well, I suppose, you know, Rob Becker, whose work I'm sure you're very familiar with.

Yeah, yeah.

Dr. Becker and Dr. Marino, they wrote about these things in many of the books they published. This sort of— you touch this third rail of electromagnetic radiation in health and all of a sudden your funding evaporates, your friends don't take your calls. It's not it's not necessarily so dramatic, but it's dramatic enough that, you know, in the end, everyone's having this very night and day experience as a researcher going from— we were darlings of the funders, got all these grants, had all this money coming in, everybody wanted to fund us from the— I don't know about you, but, you know, Becker, for example, he had tons of contracts from tons of different people, including, I believe, the DOD, the Department of Defense here in the United States. And so it's— I'm very curious about the politics behind that. I can only imagine, but because it's such a, you know, it's such a— there's so many elements to it. You know, I'm thinking of a well-known senator here in the United States. He made his money in telecommunications before he— and that was the money he used to run for Congress, right? I can only imagine what his vested interests remain in the telecommunications industry, but you go I mean, you look at how telecommunications has exploded from the time, you know, Marconi invented the radio to today. You know, everyone has a bidirectional microwave in their pocket that can do way more than transmit voice. It can do everything from transmit voice to document video footage to upload it to the cloud in real time. There's so much money that's at stake here. What I find very interesting is that— and I'll— I don't know if you talk to a lot of clinicians who, who actually talk to patients about EMF, but my perspective has become that patients don't intrinsically want to talk about EMF because it's a hard problem to fix because you have so little control over most of it and you've already built your life around these devices. What's interesting is that when the pain of their illness becomes sufficiently severe and their investment in their provider practitioner who's telling them about it and the importance of it is significantly high— in other words, you've already gotten them some wins, some successes in their clinical case, they're feeling better— that's when they're willing to entertain it. And then what struck me, and I often use this example because I don't actually have a lot for reasons I'll explain. I had this case early on in my career when I was doing very close follow-up, spent a ton of time with every patient. Now I have too many patients to be able to do that. It wasn't sustainable for many reasons. But I, I had a very severe headache case. She described such severe headaches that she didn't know how she would continue to live with them. We got them down to about a 7 out of 10 in the first 3 to 4 months, and that's when I started to talk to her about EMF mitigation. Turned out her house and her office were a disaster. And partly that's— and this is an interesting part of the problem— is that in some respects, the more money you have, the more EMF becomes a problem. Because you— these people wind up with a home theater system, and they have a very complicated pool, and they have like complicated light systems in their home that may be just weird voltages and wiring. And they have every kind of gizmo and gadget in the kitchen you can possibly conceive of. And I have a friend who tells a crazy story of a woman who had a smart bed— the worst idea ever to those of us in the know— and this bed was beaming a radio frequency signal at her head as she slept. So no wonder she couldn't sleep. Of course, she unplugs the bed and her sleep returns to normal, but she took this seriously and she mitigated her home and her office as much as she possibly could. And her headaches went from a 7 out of 10 to a 4 out of 10 with just that intervention. So, you know, I find it so interesting because it's— there's so much value for patients that almost no one talks to them about. And it's because of two things. Number one, how challenging it— people perceive it to be to mitigate EMF, which it's not actually that challenging. And number two, there's so many vested interests telling them not to worry about it and selling them an alternative that's in their perspective, easier to do— take a supplement, take a drug, do a treatment, do a therapy— rather than actually fix the underlying problem, a root cause of EMF exposure. So it's very interesting to hear you talk about the research side of it though, and the politics.

Well, I mean, I agree 200% with what you say. And actually, what I would tell today is that And when I have a person that attributes problems to the electromagnetic environment, I tell them, well, go to a medical doctor. It could be some other culprits here, you know, but don't tell them anything about your suspicions. Just tell them your symptoms and ask for help, and let the medical doctor pick out what kind of illness you have. And in the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you talk to a building biologist electrician, technician of some sort, you know, that are experts on shielding, distancing, removal of these gizmos and gadgets. But don't tell the medical doctor because he or she could very well turn against you, actually. And don't, don't risk it. And people are very happy when they do this compromise. But at the same time, it's odd that you are not allowed to talk about this as a possible cause for symptoms. And again, as you said, both in research and in the clinical field, there are a lot of politics going on. And I've had these examples. I remember, for instance, when— my problem was really that the ordinary society outside of the medical and scientific field, they were extremely interested in what we were doing, and that including media. —so we were constantly exposed in newspapers, tabloids, radio, television, and so on. I remember one time we were on the first front page of the biggest daily newspaper here in Sweden, Dagens Nyheter, the Daily News, and it was a very nice article, very nice images, etc. And then a professor came to me and said things like, oh no, 'Not you also, oh, now you are with the tin-foilers,' you know. What? I couldn't understand what was she talking about, you know, but she sort of condemned me to hell, actually, you know, and I was surprised because I thought being employed by the government, like in Sweden, the Karolinska Institute is a governmental authority. I thought I was working for the people, the taxpayers, the consumers, and so on, but that was not the case actually. And I realized it more and more. And you said about the funding situation, I would say around maybe the mid-1990s, the funding more or less completely stopped in spite of the fact that we had done a lot of different things that were extremely interesting from an academic as well as clinical as well as biological as well as human medical point of view. But no, then it, it went from a trickle of money to nothing really. Pick up where you left off.

You're starting these investigations, you're getting skin biopsies, you're looking for peptide biomarkers. Where did it go from there? And I'm most curious to hear from you You know, I've, I've worked with some very wonderful scientific minds at medical school, and there was always this, this tendency I found in them to always sort of follow not only where the data was pointing, but sort of where their nose was leading them. And I'm, I'm really curious what this journey was like for you intellectually. Your thinking on the problem, what you thought it meant, and what you— what led you down the path to where you are now.

Well, I would quickly say that what happened was that I realized that people with the functional disability called electrohypersensitivity very strongly showed that a democracy like Sweden is not. Because that was the wrong disability to have and they were pushed aside or even pushed out of the social network. And that was in itself very fascinating that you could be like a murderer, a felon, you know, you could be a thief, you can be anything but not electrohypersensitive. And from an academic point of view, that was extremely interesting to witness. And then, of course, I mean, I don't know the English word for that, but you can sort of leap from one piece of ice in the sea to another and to another, and you were jumping around. It's a very Swedish metaphor.

Yeah, I live in Florida, there's no ice.

Okay. But I was jumping around like that, where I could see someone with some resources. So, it was very much determined by where you can find some money to do research, but also at the same time things started to happen outside of the room and you saw that, for instance, you had a dramatic decline of pollinators like honeybees, bumblebees, and so on, and there were and are, of course, classical explanations like insecticides, pesticides, viruses, etc. But they don't add up. They cannot explain everything. And then at the same time, other scientists started to show that honeybees don't like man-made microwave exposure. And we have shown that they need natural background fields. And so—

That was your recent paper that you just sent me. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, and so therefore, again, now we started to jump not for only money, but also for areas. That we felt were extremely important. And one area that really keeps me awake is the fact that different scientific groups have exposed ordinary bacteria, bacteria we have on us and in us right now, either to the classical GSM or second-generation mobile telephony or super modern Wi-Fi router exposure. And to make a long story short, then the bacteria become antibiotic resistant. And during the pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic, a representative from the World Health Organization in Geneva, in Switzerland, he was interviewed by a reporter, and the reporter asked if the COVID-19 was the worst threat to mankind. And then the representative sort of smiled and said, no, no, We will be able to handle that and fix it, you know. But the reporter said, well, what is then the worst threat to mankind? And then the WHO representative said, well, that's easy to answer. That's antibiotic resistance in healthcare. So while talking in a cell phone or using a Wi-Fi router, maybe you are turning your own as well as other people's and dogs, cats whatever bacteria into super bacteria being antibiotic resistant, and I remember when I heard this the first time, I got kind of bewildered, so I called a relative who is a surgeon and asked her if this is such a big problem, and she said, oh yeah, it's a huge, huge problem, but you know, we are not really allowed to talk about it in public. What, in Sweden, a democracy? You are a medical doctor, a surgeon, you cannot talk about it? No, no, I don't do that, she said.

Yes, it becomes very political, which is why, at least in— I mean, I'm in the camp here in America that wants the government as far out of healthcare as possible, but that's another story. Yeah, yeah. So that's so interesting. You know, you mentioned— you said a word there non-classical. I think part of the problem with people understanding how and what a threat EMFs are is that the, the logical jump from I turn on my cell phone to it changes the genes of the bacteria in my body is too big a gap based on a classical understanding of physics, which is basically, you know, I throw the ball and my friend catches it, they throw it back to me. Newtonian physics in a word. And I find that there's sort of— and that's the tough thing about quantum physics. And I think that's why some of the greats, people like Feynman, Einstein, I can't remember who said it and I can't remember the exact quote, but they said things like quantum mechanics is so sort of weird, it's hard to understand. And, and so often it's exactly the opposite of what we expected. And I think that's a big part of the challenge of getting people to consider that this could actually be the problem. In the conventional medical world, this is what we see. We see that the sickest patients have the most drug-resistant bacteria, and they have them— and this is the sort of the, the narrative— because they have poor diet and lifestyle that lead them to serious dysfunction metabolically, their immune system is not competent, the bacteria proliferate, they require antibiotics, then they— we use the antibiotics to knock them back, and then the, the bugs proliferate again because you can't possibly eliminate all of them. And so these people just need round after round after round of antibiotics. It's increasingly accepted in the mainstream that this is a problem of food, which is partly because the food problem is so dramatic. And so obvious and so undeniable that it is not feasible to continue to deny it. This is why we see this sea change where, you know, like for example, the Means Twins, their book was all about food and was all about, you know, energy in the sense that what you put in your body gets burned for energy. And so you need to put good things in your body for energy, et cetera. But they never talk about, as far as I know, EMF. They don't talk about more controversial things. I won't go there because it's not where I want to take the podcast. We have lots of other content on that. Um, but this idea of cell phones are part of this equation still hasn't penetrated that mainstream narrative. And what I'm interested in is, are they scapegoating food finally to distract people from the EMF problem? Because it, it makes sense to me. They can't deny the food problem anymore if they go ahead and just clean up the food dyes, if they clean up the processed food, if they make it at least a little bit healthier, it buys them a little bit of forgiveness and time on the EMF problem, which— this is interesting. I, I'm— we've not spoken before, this first time we've ever spoken. We've corresponded. But during COVID one of the only videos I had pulled down on social media was about this connection between the electromagnetic environment and the immune system and All of this is very well-grounded in the literature. It's just not well-funded enough for us to then create the kind of studies that demonstrate conclusive proof because of the things we've talked about today. There's politics. All of a sudden you start touching this third rail and your funding dries up and you have no friends and you have to, as you put it in a very Swedish metaphor, jump from ice, ice, ice, whatever you call it. Piece of ice to piece of ice. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, no, I mean, I agree completely. And I've seen it so many times happening. And anything and everything is, of course, possible. And to buy time, yes, of course, you can redirect the interest to other corners. And I feel it quite strongly that it's an ongoing way of hiding difficult topics. But at the same time, as you touched upon, for instance, for the electromagnetic fields, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of peer-review-based scientific publications which you just cannot deny if you not turn your entire body away from it, and that is what exactly happens. And, but I'm surprised, and I remember and that would be in 2008, I was asked to make a paper about impacts of man-made electromagnetic fields on the immune system, and I started and I realized, wow, there are so many papers already, and I started to collect them, read them, write about them, and eventually I had a pretty thick manuscript— and my finding in it was such, so I thought, no, I must have misunderstood something here. Could it really be that the immune system initially is activated or stimulated by the electromagnetic fields, but since they are colossal, it cannot fight them out, so after some time the immune system starts to malfunction and deteriorate and it goes down and really goes down. At the time one of the foremost experts in the world on the immune system, was working across the street, so I contacted her and said, "Hey, I have this manuscript, could you please read it and tell me all the points in it that are wrong or which could be discussed in another way?" And she said, "Okay, I will do that," and it took like 3 weeks, she came back and she said, Nothing in this manuscript is wrong. It's perfectly written. It's very interesting. And trust me, Olie, it makes me scared. Yeah, that's what she said, you know. That really makes me scared. Are people aware of what happens when they expose themselves, their loved ones, their neighbors, their workmates with these artificial electromagnetic fields? Probably not. But she said this has to be published, and it was, without any alterations, in a journal called Pathophysiology in the year 2009, and it's still very much cited by other colleagues around the world. And, you know, it's tempting to think about all the issues that are related to deterioration or malfunction of your immune system ranging from cancer to COVID-19 to ordinary flus and colds, etc. Allergies, asthmas, like in Sweden, and I've forgotten the year, but it's quite a number of years ago, maybe at the same time, more than half of the kids up to the year 14 has at least one allergy or asthma here in Sweden. Is that good? Of course not. It's a scandal to say the least. And again, you can investigate certain sectors but not the electromagnetic fields, you know.

Was there a moment in your research where you realized even though people are skeptical and I'm not getting any funding, there's something really important here. If so, what was that moment and what did it feel like?

Well, I would say there has been several such moments, often initiated by other scientists' publications. You may have had a sort of hunch that something was going in the wrong direction and suddenly someone else showed the impact of artificial electromagnetic fields on that particular area. But also, well, maybe I would say we made a provocation study, and that would have been 1994, and we took 12 persons that claimed electrohypersensitivity, and they started to sit in the countryside in a completely electricity-free small hut, and then later on they would train themselves on any gadget they wanted to use for a provocation study, and the final part would be that it was double-blinded, so neither the scientists or the person that were exposed knew if a black box contained a cell phone or not.— and then I remember I learned so many things, and one of them was that two of the participants, two women, they had always said that they were exposed to high-frequency electromagnetic fields, regardless if this box was empty or not. And it's like if you have a friend that likes to play darts, and they have a very narrow hit figure, but it's way off the board, then they probably need glasses to correct this. You know, they are good dart players, but they need help. And that's the same in biomedical statistics. If you have a very narrow circle of dots, but they are wrongly placed, then you have a finding. So, I thought, hmm, this is strange. Could there be some kind of background signals in this room? So, I went to the Linköping University next by and asked an expert in metering and measurements to come, and he brought a lot of different antennas and oscilloscopes and printers and whatnot, and he said then, yes, there is a background signal, it's in the order of a quarter of a cell phone in this box, it's all it's always there and it's used for— it's a hidden secret military radio beacon for high-speed aircraft, and just like 20 kilometers away is the testing ground for Swedish military aircraft, and this beacon will help the pilot to maneuver in very high speeds. So when the ladies said in this empty room that there is something here, we feel it, you know, they were right. And maybe they had actually revealed a secret military installation. I don't have the proof to say that, but it's tempting to think about it. And then I remember I was struck that maybe electrohypersensitive people are the classical yellow canary birds in the coal mine, they will sense something which you and I will not, and way before we will react to it. And therefore, since a few years back, sometimes I consider that maybe the electrohypersensitive people are the new normal ones in this very toxic environment filled with electromagnetic signals, they react to it, whereas people like myself, I am electrohyposensitive, I don't react to it, and therefore in the long run maybe I will instead get a cancer tumor or neurological damage or immune system collapse or whatever. But they react like the yellow canary bird. Long before it.

In other words, you're saying that they sense the problem and will therefore flee it and therefore incur less damage. Yes, it's a very interesting model and idea. Yeah, it is.

You know, this is the classical, what is called the biological sensor, and people are looking for it for various exposures, something with which will tell you through a sound or a change of color or a voice message, whatever, something is not good here. And then you would remove yourself from it, you would have a natural avoidance behavior. And they might be the kind of biological sensors in themselves. And, you know, at least in Sweden, I don't know for other countries, but for many years people tried to ridicule them and talk them down and tell them that they were, you know, just imagining this. But maybe they were completely right, and this particular experiment revealed to me a lot of different such information which I hadn't been aware of before. So that was definitely an enlightenment period in my life.

In a single sentence, what was it about that experiment or series of experiments that totally convinced you this was real?

I wouldn't say I was totally convinced. Being an academic scientist, I was fascinated, and I was like 99.9% convinced, but I still felt that there were small tiny question marks. Maybe we needed to go further deep into this. So, we published a report in Swedish, and then we started to apply for money, but since they had identified in a double-blind manner microwave exposure and radiofrequency exposures, I guess our days were over because it was just impossible to get money to do more such provocation studies. We tried and tried and tried.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You performed a study where people were blinded and the researchers were blinded, I assume? Yeah. Yeah. So double-blinded study where people had a box in the middle of a room. Yeah. And these electrosensitive people could reliably tell you whether or not there was a device in the box emitting radiation. There was one that were 100% correct.

Both in the acute reaction as well as in the delayed, meaning 24 hours later delayed reaction. And that was super interesting. But maybe these others that seemingly were wrong, but they all had this narrow circle saying that, no, I'm exposed regardless of what's in the box. Yes. And I thought, you know, they have a mental issue, there is nothing here. Until this man came from the university and said, oh yeah, there is a very strong background signal here and it's a radio beacon from the military aircraft systems.

I want to make sure we speak for a moment about the paper you recently published on the honeybees. Would you summarize it for people?

Yes, together with Daniel Favria in Switzerland, and he's really the one who is doing all the work, you know. And we are interested in this dramatic decline of pollinators, other insects. How dramatic is the decline, Ole? Oh, in Europe it's pretty good. We have lost in the order of 75%, 75%. But in Canada, the loss of honeybees is more than 90%. In the United States, the loss of bumblebees is more than 90%, which both is, of course, a catastrophe. Well, 75% is also a catastrophe, no question about it. And people are trying to change the route of this downhill motion, and then we got very interested in the— could electromagnetic fields, man-made artificial ones, impact the honeybees? And other scientists had shown in, should we say, semi-controlled experiments that if you, for instance, introduced a cell phone into a beehive, then the queen would collect the worker bees and just run away and disappear. But you see, again, the question would be: was it because of the radiation, or was it some kind of plastic contaminant smell, Taste? Yes. Something, yeah, there are a lot of questions here. So we wanted to do more controlled experiments and the latest we have done is that we isolated the honeybees from the natural background electromagnetic fields and one of them is called the Schumann resonances and they are generated by thunderstorms at a very high level, between 60 to 300 kilometers above ground, and we took away those. They have always been around the planet Earth, long before the honeybees, by the way. We removed them and took away them and shielded the beehives, and when we did so, the queens didn't like the loss of the natural fields. We didn't add any artificial fields, we just removed the natural ones, and then the queens, for instance, stopped laying fertilized eggs, meaning that there would be no more honeybees. So that was in itself extremely important, and now we are hoping to be able to continue to do controlled standardized experiments using honeybees, but in a bigger scale. To look on all the different details in these projects. So we are actively searching for funding, of course.

We've got to wrap up. And so I want to close by asking you, what do you wish everyone knew? And what do you wish everyone would do about the threat of these microwave radio waves? And it's not just those, I mean, it's just electromagnetic radiations that are not native to the Earth's atmosphere and biosphere?

Well, I think what people should do is maybe to get themselves a little bit more interested and to listen to people like yourself and to other such programs that you can find on the internet and start read a little bit and think about their own situation. You mentioned before, for instance, headaches. Here in Sweden, many people they think it's natural to always in the afternoon have a headache, and it's not. It's so bad, you know, and the question is, is it only stress? Are there other chemical factors? You mentioned food, for instance, or could it be the electromagnetic fields? And as you know, there are scientists that have shown that exposure to various forms of electromagnetic fields will generate headaches. So maybe they would need to start thinking, should I shield myself, my children, my dog, my cat, etc.? And the knowledge we have today is so extensive and comprehensive, so I'm surprised that people don't more actively try to at least ask their politicians, their civil servants, the salesperson in the, in the store and so on about these questions. And if we go to like the bacteria, the honeybees and so on, then I'm more surprised that people don't constantly stand up and scream because the situation is extremely dire, you know. And of course for myself, if anyone would like to support our research, they could go to a fundraiser call we have and it's research. Radiation.dk, delta kilo, and if they scroll down, they have two different options how they can support us, and trust me, even a single dollar will make a difference, because it's very, very difficult to get funding from more official sources, they are often turning away from us, and recently I wrote to the head of the Swedish World Wildlife Fund, and I asked her if she would be interested to maybe write a little bit about our research regarding both bacteria, honeybees, and so on, and then she replied and said that the World Wildlife Fund was dealing with nature and environment. And if honeybees are not nature and environment, then I am the Queen of Sheba, you know. Oh, really? I mean, the answer— I mean, you cannot believe an answer like that. And the odd thing is that the Swedish WWF and the international big organizations right now have huge campaigns to protect the honeybees. But they could not write about the research. You know, if you can explain that to me, I'm, I'm yours forever. I just cannot understand it. I am.

I remember when I found out what a problem EMFs were based on popular literature I was reading that reached back into Becker's work, and then I read Becker's work. I read a little bit of Andrew Marino's work, and I— it was a very— it took me months to sort of— I don't even know how to quite put it. The scope and scale of the problem is not comparable to anything else. Smoking is the closest thing I can find, but smoking in the end is a recreational habit. Cell phones are, I would say, just as addictive, but they've been integrated into the fabric of society in such a way that to remove them would very much alter the global economy in ways I don't even think I can begin to fathom. And my— the reason I say that is that I'm concerned that this is really only going to come into focus for most people. And I've, I've said this before. I've said that the public tends to accept that something is bad for them when the bodies are stacked so high and so deep that no one can pretend they're not there. And that's what I'm afraid is going to have to happen. As I see fertility rates drop, as I see cancer rates rise, as I see autoimmune and allergic disease rates rise, you know, and I've often relate this back to cancer rates because I think they're one of the most telling consequences of our modern toxic environment from all causes, including some we, we only mentioned tangentially here. Cancer rates 100 years ago were so low that if you came into the hospital with cancer, all the medical students and all the residents would come to your hospital room to see you so they could have seen the cancer patient. Now we have wards full of cancer patients. And if memory serves, in the 1970s when Nixon declared the war on cancer, which was according to Linus Pauling a total fraud, 1 in 3 people were getting cancer. Well, 50 years later it's 1 in 2. This is an exponential function. It's, it's, it's doubling every so often. Now there's some people who dispute that, which I won't get into here, but my point is just we're seeing the level of pathology in the public rise and this is something I've spoken with other clinicians about as well. You know, I have a good colleague in San Antonio, Derek Guillory, who sees a lot of complex chronic illness, and he said to me many times now, he says, just in the last 5 years, getting patients the same results is harder. My therapeutics don't work as well. I don't know if it's that I'm getting tougher cases, but they look as tough as the ones I saw 5 years ago, so I don't think that's it. And many other doctors and mentors of mine have commented on this. The patients are getting sicker, there's more of them, and it's harder to get them well. And so I, I'm, I'm, I think that what's going to end up happening is there's going to be some kind of basically demographic implosion where people are dying at younger and younger ages. People in living memory can remember when it was radically different. And the people who ignore all this, you know, put their heads in the sand and just pretend it's not a problem. They're not going to be able to have successful children. Their children will be dysfunctional. They'll be developmentally disabled. They'll have all kinds of problems because they're inadvertently perhaps poisoning them. And that's when it's really going to become undeniable, because what's going to happen is people like the Amish, or people like me who understand the scope of what's making people sick, we're going to continue having kids and raising families and, no one's going to be able to pretend that it's not real. But I do think it's going to take that level of catastrophe for things to change.

And you know, it's, yeah, I agree 200% with you. And it's kind of a divine injustice because very, very poor people around the world will not be able to build all this kind of infrastructure or buy all these gadgets and so on. But at the end of the day, maybe they are the survivors. Maybe they are the ones that still will have kids together with Amish and you, I mean. Yes. And that's a fascinating thought, you know. And of course, also people with electrohypersensitivity may be better off because they are avoiding the toxic environment to the best of their capacity at least, you know, some of it is difficult or impossible to avoid. And of course, since I'm very egoistic, I hope of course that Swedish inventors and business people will listen to you and they will think, ah, now we can invent tomorrow's green, human and environmental friendly technology, as you say, It will be hard to take away the cell phones from people, they are so addicted to it, but maybe we can sell them a safe system. Whatever that will be, I don't know, but if it's possible. So, and then of course Sweden would be richer than Japan ever was, you know, so it's an egoistic thought, but maybe while we are talking, young kids in California sitting in a garage inventing exactly this. So whoever picks up on this could become tomorrow's new Bill Gates or Elon Musk or whatever. So there are also an upside to the downside. Yes. But I'm also scared as you are because the reports with, for instance, Alzheimer's disease in very young people, which we never saw before, and suddenly you have it and it's increasing. And when you look into the scientific literature, if you expose— and that's where we started— if you expose the brain and the nerve cells, especially in the areas afflicted by Alzheimer's, then the cells will be harmed and even be killed. And again, I'm surprised that politicians and civil servants don't stand up and say, "No, stop, we cannot go down this road," you know. But instead they look away because they earn a lot of income from the companies, from the operators, from the consumers.

I've got to run. Dr. Johansson, thank you so much for joining me. If people are wondering what they can do about this because they're concerned as we are, I've got lots of blog posts on this. If you put EMF into my Substack, you'll get a ton of articles. And Dr. Johansson, where can— we'll include all the links that you mentioned earlier, but where else can people find out about your work and keep in touch with you?

It's the same, the fundraiser call, research.radiation.dk, Delta Kilo, because it starts with an introduction. They have a short CV, a long publication list, and then I also have a short compilation of the kind of projects we would like to pursue. And I say again, whatever you give, give it because we need it.

Thank you for joining me. I look forward to having you back on the podcast. It's great to finally get to meet you in person, or so to speak.

Take care.