Are human beings the proverbial canaries in the coal mine when it comes to the roll out of 5G networks across the world?
Proponents of 5G promise us faster internet speeds, better and more widespread coverage, improved reliability, and that it’s perfectly safe. However, it’s the lack of evidence regarding the safety of 5G that has caused health practitioners like Dr Robin Kelly to speak out.
In this episode, Dr Kelly discusses the unproven safety record of 5G, some of the effects it has on the human body, why conducting scientific studies on this topic is particularly difficult, as well as the top 5 myths circulating about electromagnetic frequencies. He also reminds us to bring compassion and our shared humanity back into our discussions of technology progression, and that our voices are even more powerful when raised together.
Covered in this episode
[00:45] Welcoming Dr Robin Kelly
[01:48] Concerns and health effects of radio frequencies
[07:37] The therapeutic touch and the autonomic nervous system
[12:54] Are we the canaries in the mine regarding radio waves?
[17:31] The unproven safety record of 5G
[24:35] Effects on fertility
[27:22] The difficulty of raising the alarm
[30:06] The difference between 5G, 4G and 3G
[36:26] The difficulty of conducting scientific studies for 5G
[39:31] Device proximity and minimising exposure
[45:10] 5 myths surrounding electromagnetic frequencies
[48:30] How health professionals can help
Andrew: This is FX Medicine. I'm Andrew Whitfield-Cook. Joining us on the line from New Zealand is Dr Robin Kelly. He's an Auckland family doctor, author, and musician. His practice embraces Western, Eastern, and modern mind-body philosophies of health. Two of his books, "The Human Antenna," and "The Human Hologram," won Science Book of the Year at the USA Best Book Awards. He has a specific interest in complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Over the past three years, he has researched the health consequences of human exposure to radio-frequency radiation, RFR, and the current rollout of the next-generation 5G. He's been interviewed many times on radio both locally and internationally about this issue, spoken at public forums and communicated directly with leading scientists, politicians, and industry advocates. And I warmly welcome you to FX Medicine. How are you, Robin?
Robin: Andrew, thank you very much for inviting me onto this wonderful forum.
Robin: Well, over the years in the early '80s, when I went into general practice, one of the things I started to do was acupuncture. And there were in those days, 400 doctors here, who learned acupuncture and practiced acupuncture in their practice, it was amazing times in many ways. And so most of those doctors were using it for straightforward, what they'd say straightforward things, tennis elbow and sore backs, and stiff necks and pains.
Robin: I, like a small group, got an interest in the Chinese philosophy behind acupuncture and sort of studied what was really energy medicine, because their understanding is that we're fundamentally energy and inflammation, and secondary we are material, if you like.
Robin: And then I wasn't the only one. There was a group of five or six of us who couldn't leave our practices because we then had just started them, economically we couldn't disappear to China for three months at a time…
Robin: …although some doctors had done that. We learned from those doctors but we also invited professors from around the world to come and talk to us on this. And then we adapted it really into what we felt was appropriate for the population that we were seeing. And I'd developed quite a deep understanding...well what I thought was a deep understanding of the philosophies behind acupuncture. You know, just like as above, so below and also through that developed my interest in holographic science and medicine and in fact, the more holistic view that we are an integral part of the universe and not separated from it.
Robin: I mean, so to cut a long story short, I discovered that people were incredibly...there was a great degree of sensitivity when I was giving them acupuncture, or even just touching their skin, almost like a range of 1,000 units would be. Particularly young people, and particularly people who are traumatised were very sensitive and going through other issues as well. And just through practically engaging in acupuncture you can do very, very gentle techniques and have quite...and it still happens, deep responses in the body, nice responses often. Good sleep, mood changes, irritable bowel settling and whatever. And in fact, sometimes you really have to tune down to the energy of the person, so it was like the subtler the technique, the more profound it often was. And I suppose, so that's...I developed my interest then into how sensitive the human body is. And also, because really what you're doing with an acupuncture needle is you're introducing an antenna, which turns the body into an antenna.
Robin: In other words, you're connecting that body with the environment. Very important what the external environment is like, you know, how I behave if I'm relaxed, if I'm not tense, if there's lovely music outside. Chinese would say “don't do acupuncture in the thunderstorm or in an electrical storm." And it was my understanding that really we were helping to connect that person on a very basic level, to sort of more universal forces, the Schumann resonances, the natural resonances of the earth and beyond, and in the deepest way. So I came to that sort of...another understanding of the human body that I hadn't learned at medical school. I'd learnt really that we were chemicals, just chemicals because we are chemicals, but, you know, even more basic sort of chemicals, the molecules, and the atoms and the space between them.
So it was from that and a lot of sort of, I suppose practical understanding and feedback I was getting from patients that I developed this, I suppose this passion that I have for integrating that into my medical practice. I'm still a medical doctor, I'm a GP, I work in the university. I see no conflict about what I'm doing with the sensible prescribing of medication. But I have to say since I've been doing this in my life, I've prescribed less than lower doses of medication, which would seem to be a good thing.
So I've come to that sort of understanding. And when, I suppose in the last few years, I have had people that have come to me who have been electro hypersensitive. So I'm claiming that we're all electrically sensitive. We all respond, we are electrical beings and we respond to the vibes out there, whether emotional or man-made or both.
Andrew: Yeah. Yeah.
Robin: And so I have had people that are very sensitive and have come to me saying they're sensitive to Wi-Fi, and mostly they've been shunned by medical practitioners. So I am listening to them. And also I've often seen this in relation to other traumas. And that's not to say this isn't important. It's actually very important that we look at the whole person. But some people are incredibly sensitive and children, in particular. I could just touch an acupuncture point in young children, or even draw on an acupuncture point turn their attention to it, and there will be a response. This is,…so we've totally underestimated how sensitive the human body is. And I suppose that was my entry point into my concern about what is happening into our environment…
Robin: …over last few years. It's a very long answer to a very simple question.
Andrew: Now, could part of that...IBS being a very emotionally driven or triggered condition, could that be in part their stressors have been lessened, i.e. they feel cared for, they feel like they're being heard about their condition where previously they weren't?
Andrew: Yeah. And so this is part of the therapeutic touch. Now, I know personally, acupuncture has relieved pain in me. And is there any research on sham acupuncture points, like you were saying, drawing on a point? Is there drawing on off-point, and getting the same result or different result?
Andrew: And things like people who come in with concerns about being sensitive to Wi-Fi, is there any research on sham Wi-Fi? Is there anything like this to act as a control if you like?
Robin: No, there's precious little research on that side. I mean, you make a very interesting point about acupuncture as well. I mean, general, most of the people we're seeing have a sort of, are more in fight and flight than they need to be.
Robin: We need to be in fight or flight when we're crossing the road looking around us or being chased and so, you know, maybe at the maximum for 5% of the day.
Robin: But generally, people's bodies are in fight or flight and that, of course, means parts that are irritable including, you know, the very dynamic bowel and bladders, whatever. So in general with... And I'll come to acupuncture, but I'll say why acupuncture alone, isn't so important as the actual, the way we treat people. Basically, people rush into a doctor's...this is in general, for their 10 or quarter of consult.
Robin: They feel anxious, they see a doctor who's rushed or working, you know, is an hour behind. So they go into an atmosphere of tension and fight or flight, it takes them at least 20 minutes to unwind, basically. So the biggest change I did in my practice was to work at home and to extend my consultation hours to a minimum of half an hour.
Robin: Because there's absolutely no way that fight or flight can't be...we can't somehow address it without understanding that.
Robin: How we welcome the person, how we sit them down, how we listen, with an open mind and an open heart is 90% of everything, of all healing. Now one of the things about acupuncture is that in general, it affects the autonomic nervous system. So those people who are in fight or flight go into a situation of sympathetic overload, the parasympathetic comes in, it's an accepting mood in the body, it's a peaceful mood in the body, it's restful. If they just lay down for half an hour, and we soothe them with any therapy or just talking to them, they would probably go into that state. Acupuncture just is very good at switching the body from that fight or flight to this other state. Now, that actually happens, where if you put the pin, I mean...this is the whole point. When they're trying to assess acupuncture on a Western medical...in a paradigm, they're saying, "Well, you know, you're saying that this acupuncture point here is important, and this other one, an inch away, three centimetres away isn't important. We'll compare this one with that one.” And what they find is yes, you get some response for points outside the traditional Chinese understanding where the points should be.
Robin: That is because you're inducing this state, whatever you're doing if you're doing it properly, into a peaceful state.
Robin: So it's like going fishing. Even if you fish at the wrong time of the day, you put a line in, you may well catch a fish.
Andrew: Gotcha. Right.
Robin: If you're in the right environment from that. So it's really been quite unfair on acupuncture because they've been trying to prove acupuncture against what they call sham acupuncture, which isn't sham if you're actually creating an environment for the person. Because the end result is that person is going to feel heard, and in a state of peace. And what I do with my acupuncture is say, "Look, this is how you can get to the state of peace," and then I teach them how to do it themselves, in other words, through whatever that interests them. You know, it may be Tai Chi, yoga, it may be something creative, it may be painting, it may be dancing or whatever, anything that gets them into the moment, away from fear. So that's my role. And in fact, you can see then, my interest had developed in complex post-traumatic stress, which is something we're all, to a certain extent, suffering from in our lives, and means of getting people to understand how to create peace in their bodies. That's my aim in everybody that comes to see me, pretty well.
Andrew: So, on with radio waves, I can still remember from primary school, a concern, and there was a concern, and then it was dissed, and then it came up again, like five years later or so, a concern and then it was dismissed again. And yet I can still remember let's say a decade ago, and a neurologist, I do believe at Royal Brisbane Hospital was saying he's never seen so many parietal tumours in teenagers. So whether it's going to be proven or not that there's radio waves, there's certainly an issue. So the problem that I see is that it was merely dismissed, rather than going, "Well, there's something going on here. How about we find out what it is."
Robin: And since then, you know, our exposure has increased exponentially really too.
Robin: And, you know, when we talk about 5G, and I'll explain about that for people who...I'm sure a lot of people know about that. Remember that it's on top of all existing radio waves as well, there's an accumulative effect, a cumulative effect over the last 30 years that's increased.
Also, we have to tie in the addiction that is now created within society for handheld cell phones and wi-fi, and also the effect of that on people's behaviour, or on their relationships. All this, it's both complex, but it's also compounding exponentially. And we, I suppose, a good physician should be ahead of the game. When say, over 30 years ago, the statins, the cholesterol statins were introduced, most good physicians would have picked up in the first week that people are complaining about aches and pains.
Robin: And it took sort of 20 or 30 years past that for the authorities - very much controlled by the pharmaceutical companies to admit it.
So we're in a situation where I believe we're observing the canaries down the mine much before the vested interest corporations and institutions who are making money out of this. We are the ones that I think have a...well, I believe, a moral and ethical responsibility to point out to people where this is going.
Andrew: Absolutely. So this is always a big issue with vested interest. And we've got a draw here, as in the public wants this, the public wants convenience. It's almost like how do you raise an issue against something that somebody actually wants?
Robin: Yep, yep.
Andrew: And it's almost like addressing an opioid issue really, isn't it?
Robin: It's exactly the opioid issue or certainly in the '70s telling a smoker that they were addicts. And then in the '80s, I mean, it wasn't till the early '90s that secondary smoke...environmental smoke from others was proved to be dangerous. Had I been talking about this in the early '80s, I would have been told that I was a scaremongerer.
Robin: And yet, it was pretty obvious when you saw families and kids with asthma, and bronchial diseases. To say to their parents, "No, don't smoke. Don't smoke in front of your kids and your babies."
And so what eventuates several years later should be picked up by us because it's our job to actually intervene early, first do no harm and to identify environmental issues. And I believe that's what's happening. And that's why there's a great schism between those of us who have done the research. And I'd say that any doctor or health professional that looks at the research will say, "Whoa, you know, there's enough there for us to be incredibly cautious." And with no vested interest at all. Our vested interest should only be in the person in front of you. Whether they're a child or a CEO of a tech company, I will say the same thing to them, if I'm concerned about that.
Robin: And the worrying thing is that I think this addiction, this dependence on technology... And I'd have to say I love technology, I love it. And I'm not against technology, I'm for safe technology.
Robin: And I think it's up to these guys who are already making huge profits from it, to put far more money into independent research and has to be totally independent. I think the onus should be on them to prove it safe, not for me to prove it's unsafe or us to prove it's unsafe.
Robin: And that's the issue I think where that, see I'm getting a bit emotional about us now because...
Robin: No, they say it hasn't been proven to be unsafe. So in other words, there's been no studies done at all. I mean, there have been studies done on certain wavelengths and by independent scientists, but there's actually no proof it's safe at all. There's absolutely no proof it's safe, and they haven't proved it's safe.
Andrew: And so this is, again, what we see is, once something is accepted, it's very hard to now then get it turned around. So is that how this machine works?
Robin: I mean, if, say, 1 in 10,000 people develop a brain tumour from a non-ionising radiation and let's say that 1 in 10,000, that means...and they die. And the 500 in New Zealand, that will be 500 deaths a year, 10 times the number of people who died in Christchurch. And just doing the math off the top of my head, in Australia, probably 3,000 over there, that won't touch their profits.
Robin: That’s the bottom line. And they'll also be able to deny that it was a correlated factor. And there's this whole idea of correlation and causation.
Andrew: That's right.
Robin: It wouldn't touch them at all. It wouldn't touch them at all. And it would be like friendly fire as far as they're concerned. And this is the shocking thing that I've realised.
And I started this thing talking to the CEOs of certain companies, and the media and others not really believing that this state of mind was out there. I had a horrible suspicion it was, but I didn't totally believe it. I've come to believe that such is the drive for money, and power, and control, that is such the drive that they, the authorities, would be comfortable to accept people getting sick as long as it doesn't affect their profits.
Robin: That sounds.. I can't think of any other way for my communications with them over the years that...any other logical explanation.
Andrew: But we've seen this previously with, for instance, I remember a case with cimetidine and a man using pesticides, he was basically turning himself into an insect, got multiple cancers eventually died.
Andrew: And when he sued the company, the court awarded so many millions of dollars plus a million-dollar punitive damages because they knew that this was an interaction with the CYP enzymes and therefore there was an existing concern. I guess we have to rely on what research is there of harm?
Robin: Yeah. Well the research of harm is of the existing radio waves. And I think one thing that this has taught me in studying the 5G where it's going into the unknown, as you know, the higher frequencies that actually carry a greater bandwidth of information per wave, if you like, and are pulsed in such a way that people...there will be no time lag. And therefore you can create a virtual reality holographically through this system, anyway.
But we've got this huge amount of studies on what we're already exposed to, including a 25 million U.S dollar study, which I referred to by the National Toxicology Program in the States and this is a very famous one, along with the National Institute of Environmental Health over there. Which showed conclusively that rats exposed to the frequencies that we were exposed to with cell phones, male rats developed heart cancers, schwannomas. Which interestingly enough, related to the acoustic neuromas that we have, they're similar cell types.
Robin: And that was a very strong association. And that's just one, but we're talking about now thousands of studies that have come through. And the guidelines that the tech and the governments are relying on are 23-years-old now and relate to the heating effects of radiowaves and not the non-thermal effects of non-ionising radiowaves.
Robin: And there's a plethora, a huge amount of information that's come, particularly in the last 15 years, hundreds of papers, in fact, thousands of papers showing many different effects on human life and animal life and plant life.
And so we've got this huge...The government is relying on information they received before the massive increase of radiation that we're exposed to now. And the government advisors here are the industry. So you've got the industry advising the government, on the health effects. Which would be like the tobacco companies advising the government on the health effects of smoking, and we've got the government and the universities that are dependent on technology.
Andrew: Oh, god.
Robin: Now, what happened several years ago is that we used to have universities and technical institutes, and I think for all the right reasons, that elitist reason, the technical institutes became universities, and there was Unitech and there was all that. So most of the big universities are completely linked with the technological industry, both for funding and where their graduates are going to be going. So they're not independent anymore.
Robin: It’s very rare to find an independent tech industry...nor should they be, you should say. So they're the last people that you should be asking about this...
Andrew: That's right.
Robin: ...or should be advising the government, who are also dependent on... one of the big uses I think of 5G will be information gathering, for the information gathing, data gathering about the human body, but about everything about us. So you can see how governments love the idea...
Andrew: Love it, yeah.
Robin: ...that they can data gather every information about their population.
Andrew: Got you.
Robin: So there's vested interest on many levels. Plus within those groups, I would say now a growing addiction to the technology.
Robin: So we've got this...the context of this isn't being grasped by our authorities.
Andrew: Just looking, just unpacking the studies a little bit. You're saying clear evidence of these schwannomas, I find that really interesting that they're in the heart, not just the ear sort of thing. Why the difference between the incidence of these cancers in male versus female rats?
Robin: I think they always divide rats into male and female rats, and I'm not sure about that. There's certainly huge amount of many studies done on the fertility of both males and female animals, and the fertility of and the mobility of their sperm. But also, the most worrying thing is that...and I'm not sure which animals but pregnant animals who were carrying female foetuses, the follicles in the female foetuses are affected and eventually destroyed. So the evidence is coming through that the next generation...
Andrew: The generation, yeah.
Robin: ...the generations that are coming up, say, a woman goes into this environment, this heavily irradiated environment, in the early stages of pregnancy, there's enough now to us to be concerned about the fertility of her unborn child.
Robin: Female in, you know, 15, 30 years time.
Andrew: Well, there is something that's never discussed in, you know, the issues of fertility.
Robin: No. And in most of these...it's taken many years for these environmental hazards to actually manifest themselves in health issues. Even though... And I was looking at the whole asbestos story, which asbestos came in at the end of the 19th Century as a fire protection, and of course, possibly saved lives.
Robin: But alarm bells were sounded by concerned physicians, nurses, and engineers in 1898, okay?
Robin: It took a century, of many hundreds of thousands of deaths before asbestosis was accepted. And the same thing about smoking. It took, you know, 50 years before it was understood the effects. And that is because many of these effects are slow-growing. When it comes to cancers and tumours, they may not develop overnight. They will and probably and insects will be affected quite quickly. But in many, it may take a number of years and even generations. And what we're doing is being very selfish, both for our children and our unborn children unless we're incredibly cautious.
Andrew: So this is interesting where it's taken scores of decades for things like asbestos and smoking, and yet there was really good work done, like on DES, diethylstilbestrol and thalidomide. So these, you know, obviously they were given to thousands and thousands of women, and yet it took really smart doctors to unpack the issues, the generational issues, and to ring the alarm bells. I wonder how hard it was for them. And do you find that it's getting harder and harder for doctors to ring these alarm bells that they're just being pacified now?
Robin: Well, I can't get on with my message to our so-called state-run, but it's also commercially-run TVNZ. And I have sounded alarm bells, I've produced all the articles to counter their industry claims that it's safe. And communicating with them all, and they all refuse to have any physician on at all, any doctor on at all talking about this.
So we've got now a media who is totally involved in promoting this, and the reasons behind this. And one of them became clear to me reading an article last year, and a video presentation by the CEO of The New York Times who was also in collaboration with the CEO of Verizon, the tech company over there, and their idea for the future of news is to use 5G to produce instant holographic news. In other words, create an instant narrative of what's going on around the world presented to the world. So they're seeing 5G as an integral step into expanding their message to the world. And I can see... What gets me really concerned is that the dishonesty that's happening at the moment gives us a clue to the possible dishonesty that will be projected to us about what's happening in the world. So the media themselves have a vested interest in 5G...
Andrew: Of course.
Robin: ...and the production of a virtual reality, which is going to be difficult to discriminate, especially for the younger folk, from the reality of this world, whether that's virtual or not. So I mean, those are huge issues, aren't they, I think.
Robin: Yep. And 5G it isn't...G doesn't stand for gigabytes or gigahertz or whatever. It's just this fifth-generation, so it's just the progression. And as they progress, they're adding in frequencies that are closer and closer to the frequencies that we see of light, that we're aware of. Because we only see a very small part of the massive...
Andrew: Spectrum. Yes.
Robin: ...electromagnetic spectrum. So it's getting closer and closer to the visual reality of which we see and therefore can be more and more manipulated.
And so I wouldn't say every media outlet is sort of evil, wants to create this matrix, but most of them will not want to be left behind, you know?
Andrew: Yeah, of course.
Robin: So underlying it, they have instructions to their presenters not to go there with health effects because this is the first hurdle they have to get over into a much greater, bigger concern of creating artificial intelligence/ virtual reality. I know this takes us into a much bigger area, but that's what I'm realising.
Andrew: Yeah. But when you're talking about 5G, what spectrum of frequencies are we talking about?
Robin: Okay. So we're really going into the gigahertz, we're going into the sort of billion hertz mile. So you're going from...so between 1 and 300, we're adding that into the existing low frequencies. And I have to stress it's not just those, it's the fact they're adding on to others.
So the fifth generation uses all those lower frequencies as well. But in fact, are adding in these other frequencies. And the thing about these short micro waves is that they don't travel too far because they're shortwaves, like shortwave radio, citizen band radio, compared with long-wave radio, that I remember well.
Robin: So you have to have relay stations, we have antennae and cell towers every, well, close together. Some would say as close as 100 meters together. But also they are connected then to your smart meter, which then is connected to all your smart devices.
So this is what they would say is the “Internet of all things.” This is connecting all things together, electrically. To a point that...well, the idea is that it's going to make us a more convenient, it's going to be a much more convenient world. And it'll also connect cars to these antenna and to other cars as well so there'll be self-driving transport. And therefore, each of these relay stations will be on the LED lights that are being put up everywhere. So we’re being…on top of everything else, we're having these high-frequency waves, which don't carry so far. And they claim well, because they don't carry so far they only penetrate the skin to a lesser extent. I'll come to that in a minute.
So that's the next generation. And because they are the smaller more frequent waves, they carry more information, there's greater a bandwidth and what they call a negligible lag time.
So, one of the issues about the previous generations with virtual reality goggles was that if you moved your head, you get seasick…
Robin: …because of the lag in time. And this is actually the number one reason they gave us at a symposium, a 5G promoting symposium last year to reduce the lag in virtual reality goggles. In other words, to bring virtual reality into our reality. And I suppose the concern is then for, particularly those young people we call the digital natives have grown up with this technology without putting it into context for the rest of the world, how blurred is their understanding of reality going to be?
The reason I'm saying all this is this is why, quite apart from it being a multi-trillion dollar industry, why.. what we're up against. The drive that we're up against, and the forced addiction that has been imposed on a whole generation…
Robin: …and why somebody of my vintage is in a situation where I think we need to speak up because we can see this in context, and that is my concern. I have a huge concern about the direct effects of this radiation on the body, as well. But I also see this as the first step into something even more bizarre and horrible and pernicious.
Robin: I try not to argue with them because it's been a waste of time. It'd be very similar to me arguing in the '70s with a smoker.
Robin: About smoking or an addict about...because there's an addiction there. So I appreciate that addiction.
In my quest to appear on a television program, I wrote to them. And I wrote to the advocate for 5G, who is an industry person who is the person talking about the health effects. And I said, "Look..." I got on quite well with him, I'd sort of communicated with him. And I said, "How about me turning up and we should have a live debate about this?" And all he said is that, there's no reason he just said, "I don't think that's a good idea." That's what he said to me. He didn't give me a good idea. So there is no counter-argument.
Robin: The only counter-argument is it hasn't been proved to be unsafe, 5G
Andrew: That's it, right.
Robin: And the counter-argument also that has been used is that everybody who's against it is some sort of mindless conspiracy theorist. So they're gaslight people.
Andrew: Yes, yes.
Robin: And they give falsities like non-ionising radiation isn't known to have anything but heat affects. None of what I've written, you know, in the journals or whatever has in any way been counteracted by any so-called advocates. Their argument is incredibly weak.
Robin: They really have no arguments apart from just promoting and promoting and promoting propaganda is what it is.
Andrew: Yeah. I guess the only issue I've seen...I remember seeing a YouTube video of some concerned citizen when a 5G Tower went up and one side of a tree was deadened. And I remember him saying "This proves it." And I said, well, "Hang on. What about fungus? What about, you know, other sort of organic damage or you know infestation to that tree. There's no control." And I can't see this as doing the argument against 5G any good.
Robin: No, no, I couldn't agree with you more. And I think that getting a good control group, because we're all smothered with this radiation, you pretty well can't get a population that isn't exposed.
Robin: So it's very, very difficult to get controlled studies on humans. You can certainly do it on rats and there's a lot of stuff on flies, mainly because their reproduction cycles are so short…
Robin: …you can see what happens in future generations.
But what you've got to do though is to look at the whole gamut of studies that have been done. Well, actually they've been done over 50 years, and you come to the conclusion that we have to be very cautious. The precautionary principle says this. It says that even if you have a hint, even though it's not settled, scientifically, if you have a concern, and it's a legitimate concern, we should be very cautious. So the fundamental philosophical differences, the precautionary principle, us saying “let's first do no harm.” And that is our job to say that. I mean, it should the job of all health professionals to say, “let's first do no harm.” "An ounce of prevention," as Benjamin Franklin said, "is better than a pound of cure." That is our moral imperative, but it also makes common sense as well.
Andrew: It also makes common sense that they're not health professionals, so they don't have that edict to go from.
Robin: No, they don't have that interest in that person in front of them.
What do you think about the use of, more and more common, the use of earpieces, airpieces, and indeed the sometimes extremely frustrating action of people holding the mobile phone away from their mouth and talking on loudspeaker? Is it the device that's causing the issue to that person or is it indeed the towers and the density of the relay stations?
Robin: I think it's the close proximity of those devices is terribly important, probably the most important thing people can do. Afterall, you know, other than chopping down towers, that's probably the most important thing to do.
There are certainly, you know, there are very good guidelines now about what you shouldn't do. You should have it on airplay mode, they shouldn't be putting in your pocket or in your bra. And it's better to...look in some ways to have earphones, although they're probably magnetically, they're not ideal.
Robin: So there are definite, very sensible guidelines that a person can do with these. But of course, if they're in a smart home and surrounded by all this as well, how are you going to avoid all that?
Robin: Because each one of those... Your fridge is an antenna for this. Not only that, you are an antenna because there's evidence come at the 300 gigahertz level, that it read these waves resonate with your sweat glands and particularly when they're sweating. So the more anxious you're getting...and this is done on humans, on students in Israel, you become resonant. You become an antenna for this, both outwardly to other people, but also inwardly to your own organs. So you can become an antennae as well.
So as they go nearer and nearer to the visible electromagnetic spectrum, we're going to get more and more problems from this. And there's no moratorium on where to stop, that's the other thing. And people are rightly suspicious of saying, okay... And the proponents will say, "Okay, we're only into this sort of 3 and 4 gigahertz area. You, don't worry about it," because there's actually no restriction on them increasing this closer and closer. And certainly, if their intent is to produce a virtual reality, for us, they will get closer and closer to this area.
Andrew: Wouldn't it be interesting to see some research on...I'm not talking about failure of an implantable device, like a defibrillator, or anything like that, or a pacemaker, but wouldn't it be interesting to see if there was any interference of 5G devices in proximity to these implantable devices and see if there was just any interference in the signalling?
Robin: Yewah, and actually, those are studies that could be done, absolutely, and should be done by big tech really, shouldn't they? But also making sure that they're independent as well.
Robin: I mean, the precautionary principle, which I'm talking about probably only needs even 10% or even 5% of the studies to show potential harm. That's enough for the precautionary principle to come through.
Robin: The fact is that, for many studies, we're talking about 60%, 75% of the studies showing effects on cells, on living cells, particularly how calcium is transported through the cell membrane, leaving, and of course, that leads to oxidative stress, reactive oxygen, and nitrate species and that. And that's very well established. I mean, that's highly... that's proved.
That information and animal information and plant information and insect information to humans is a step they won't go to. And they will use that against these studies saying "Oh, that doesn't tell us what happens in humans." But when you see hundreds, and maybe thousands of studies that show the same thing, then the precautionary principle has to come into point.
And I have to make one more point, is that in 2012, the CIA declassified hundreds of documents that came from Russia in the '70s which actually showed that there have been thousands of studies showing how micro waves affect the body in a non-thermal way, non-ionising, non-thermal way. And the authorities have known this for, well, since the '70s. So, it's not just the information that's come through the West, but from what's come through from what was behind the Iron Curtain.
Robin: And of course, you can see why the military-industrial complex is interested in this. Not so much I don't believe for weaponry although that's a possibility, but it's for early detection, because there's no time lag you can detect.
Robin: So you're ahead of the game. Which could...you know, from their point of they'll say, that's great. We could avert a nuclear attack on this. I'd say that’s good. But these are the paths we're up against. We're up against the military-industrial complex, we're up against the media, there's a huge push for 5G in health, health information gathering. And the government's unfortunately, and I'm sad to say, seem to be the puppets whose strings are being pulled by these organisations internationally.
Robin: Okay, myth number one. Only ionising radiation is harmful. That's the radiation that obviously affects the ionic structure of atoms. So, the myth number one is only ionising radiation is harmful. I'm a trained radiotherapist, so I sort of should know my stuff here. And that non-ionising radiation is safe. That was a myth that they've been putting out for a long time. Okay.
Myth number two, that the only harmfull effect of non-ionising radiation, which is the frequencies we're talking about is heat. They are used as crowd dispersal by the military and the police in the States, and they've just dialled it down so you don't feel this. I think it's a shame we don't feel it in some ways because we’d get the hell out of it.
Andrew: Yes, it would be a good warning.
Robin: Myth number three. The frequency and pulsations used in 5G have been proven to be safe. They haven't. There has been no health testing at all, safety testing. That's myth number three, I think we've covered that.
Myth number four, those anti-5G are simply anti-tech Luddites, okay. And I keep saying no, we like technology, I see technology is going...if it's handled properly, going hand-in-hand with a conscious advance of humans. But it has to be done with common sense and compassion and heart as well as head. And to which I say that wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean you're anti-car, and wearing a...here we go, and this is very relevant to the Aussies, wearing a helmet doesn't mean you're anti-cricket or anti-riding a bike. Okay, so that's dispelling that anti-tech Luddite thing.
Myth number, that 5G has undergone independent safety testing. It hasn’t.
And myth number six, I've gone to six, the millimetre high-frequency components of 5G are safe because they don't penetrate past the skin. We have to realise... I believe that the proponents of 5G think that our skin is like the wrapping around a computer. They do not see the skin as an integral part of our bodies. It's almost like they see that's just the wrapping. They are forgetting the connection. We have blood going through our skin, they're totally unaware of the skin microbiome. I could go on and on.
Andrew: Yeah, so we could use tens machines with implantable defibrillator device. Not!
Robin: You know...
Andrew: Not ever.
Robin: ...bizarre, isn't it? And I've got picture of it somewhere. Oh, yes, that anti-5G is a Russian plot to hit the US economy. That was their big one. And basically, if you come up with this, they will mention tin foil hacks within the first sentence…
Robin: …that means they really haven't thought about it, and conspiracy theory. And even in the mainstream press, they usually have a photograph of somebody wearing a tinfoil hat. And that is the extent of their gaslighting and ignorance, I'm afraid. Yeah.
Robin: I'm going to follow what's happened in Cyprus. Where talking about health professionals and the government, and the Ministry of Environment in Cyprus has pulled all Wi-Fi out of their children's hospital and are pulling it out of their preschools and primary schools. And leading on from that, I think that this has got to come from us as human beings, as fathers and particularly as mothers who are wanting to protect their children. I think that is the most powerful message that we can put over, that we are protecting the children and we shouldn't be playing some ego games at the top level.
And so everybody has a voice and I think anybody listening to this certainly as a health professional, doctor, a natural practitioner, you can do your best. But I think our voice becomes more powerful when we talk as parents and grandparents, and we talk to teachers, and we talk common sense to the people in front of us. So everybody has a role in raising concern. And I want them to have the confidence in raising that concern. Because what I'm trying to do is saying, "Look, I've looked at the science, I'm confident that I can talk about that. You've got backup from us right? And it's not apparent, possibly what's coming through the media that there is this huge awareness of thousands of scientists and physicians around the world who are incredibly concerned about this."
So you know, just spread the word I think. And do the safety stuff. Switch the Wi-Fi off at night. If you can, get Ethernet. It is quite expensive at the moment to convert your house into that if you can.
Robin: But keep talking about it because we're talking common sense, we're talking humanity, we're talking compassion. So I'd like to think that works.
Andrew: Let's hope. I think there's some practical steps that we can all take. Indeed, a very good friend who actually helps run this podcast said, "Why don't we all create Faraday cages in our bedrooms?"
Robin: The only thing with that is, and I get that, is actually are we going to block up the wonderful resonances that come from nature?
Robin: Yeah. And so one of the concerns...and, you know, I know we're coming to an end, is that if we're relaxed in that beautiful state of peace and in nature, that's when ideas come to us. We can tune into a far better bandwidth than this stuff by sitting on our own and we become more creative that way, as well.
So I think it's really about us making sure that we spend time in nature as well, and develop peace and an understanding that this world is great. We don't need to muck it up too much and that we have to be very cautious with what we do.
Andrew: Dr Robin Kelly thank you so much for taking us through the science and issues presenting us with the next generation, 5G and indeed other technologies. And I also wish you well at the upcoming AIMA Conference to be held in New Zealand in March. So thank you very much for joining us on FX Medicine today.
Robin: I enjoyed it, thank you. Thank you, everybody at FX.
Andrew: This is FX Medicine. I’m Andrew Whitfield-Cook.