Though there are thousands of research studies on the subject, the mainstream media still doesn’t seem to accept the concerns around human-made EMF. And that’s what R got to see live when he was invited to one of the most popular talk shows on US television, Dr. Phil.
This post documents his journey from the date he received the invite for the show all the way through to the big day. It explores the challenges he faced, the tactics the show used to delegitimize R and his expertise on the subject, and how the show groomed him from the very beginning to come unprepared or act in certain ways.
Important note: While we could never know the real intentions behind them doing what they did, this is our speculation or us trying to make logical sense of what really happened.
So, let’s begin.
We Want You Not a Scientist
One fine day, the SYB customer service team received an email saying R was wanted as a guest on the Dr. Phil show, and that the topic of the conversation would be human-embedded computing.
Want to Slash Your EMF Health Risks?
Good! Learn the one small change you should make right now.
Spam messages are something that our CS deals with almost daily so, understandably, they were a bit skeptical at first. They immediately dug into verifying the email’s legitimacy – and it turns out it was actually from the Dr. Phil show.
The email escalated, and we began conversing with Dr. Phil’s team. They mentioned that they knew R’s work on The Healthier Tech Podcast and Shield Your Body.
But one thing they said really stood out. They said that they didn’t want a scientist. They wanted to feature someone who could just talk normally. So, why would that be? If relaying correct information to their audience is their goal, wouldn’t a scientist be the perfect guest? This becomes important later in this post.
They further said that Dr. Phil was a proponent of concerns around EMF and its health effects.
Dr. Phil Was a Proponent of Concerns Around EMF, They Said
If you’re doing an interview, and you’re told that the other person shares a similar point of view as you, how would you prepare to talk to them? In a way that would expand their knowledge about the subject, right? And that’s precisely how R prepared.
R prepped to help Dr. Phil’s audience understand why human-embedded computing isn’t logically and scientifically a great move for us at the moment.
But when the show began, first, the topic changed from human-embedded computing to microchipping, which are two completely different things EMF-wise. And second, Dr. Phil had a completely different point of view to what his producers described.
Even if we let that slide, we still found one of Dr. Phil’s rebuttals really interesting. This happened when R talked about how technology is almost never tested to identify its long-term effects. In response, Dr. Phil said, “That’s not true.” No, counterarguments, citations, or opposite thoughts. Simply, that’s not true. Now, you have to look at this from a layman’s point of view.
If you aren’t an EMF expert and someone as big a deal as Dr. Phil says something isn’t true, you believe it. But if you analyze his statement from an expert’s point of view, you see the hollowness of the sentence and can vaguely guess the motive behind it.
Though, this wasn’t the start of the ‘delegitimize the EMF guy’ process. It began even before R got to utter a word.
Planting Audience
Like most talk shows, the seats are preassigned in the Dr. Phil show. So, this means you can’t sit anywhere you want. They’ll give you an assigned seat number, and if you’re a guest, you’ll go to the hot seat on the stage when called.
Now in R’s case, there was a guy who asked the experts to address concerns about microchipping being a “mark of the beast”.
Well, now this seems like a real enough question that any audience member might have – but is it a coincidence that his seat was assigned right next to R, “the EMF guy’s”, seat?
Well, we have reasons to believe it wasn’t a coincidence. Because first, this wasn’t a question from the audience. We learned he was a plant from the person’s post-show social media posts on Twitter (since deleted).
When he asked this question, he was in the same camera frame as R. So, was this an attempt to subconsciously relate this person to R? Well, we don’t know exactly. But we certainly think so.
The Lower Third
There’s something called “the lower third” in the TV show business. It’s the banner that displays the name and designation of the person appearing on the screen.
Before the show, the producers emailed R asking how he’d like to be introduced in the lower third. And R emailed back with his credentials – R Blank, CEO of Shield Your Body and host of The Healthier Tech Podcast.
And the producers confirmed that this is what would appear on the show.
But when the show aired, we saw that the lower third just displayed R and nothing else. No designation, no last name. Just R.
We feel this was the second part of delegitimatizing R as an expert on the subject.
To Make Him Erupt
Drama sells. We all know that. And if you ask us, we feel that drama was what Dr. Phil was trying to get from R.
If you see the episode, you’ll notice the aggressive approach of other guests toward R, the devaluing of the things he said, and simply acting like he was wrong before he even got to say anything. In retrospect, it could have all been ruse to get R to lash out and act like a crazy person.
In fact, there was a moment where Dr. Phil was yelling at R while responding to his comments about the studies demonstrating EMF’s impact on human health.
What we Learned
It was a great opportunity, no doubt. R got to reach millions of people and share the message he believes in.
But going to the Dr. Phil show and debating whether microchipping humans was right, we learned one thing. That was, the point of the episode wasn’t really to educate people on what’s right and wrong. It was to simply get more people to watch the show with extreme interest.
This may also be a reason why they didn’t want a scientist but a “normal guy” who could talk.
And thinking about it, this isn’t new. In fact, we have seen this exact same tactic being used by wireless companies to blindside you from the real truth about EMF and its effects.
The discrediting of scientists, the marketing of slightly twisted EMF information – it’s not to educate the public about the truth, but simply to get more people to buy their gadgets and services.
And our series, The Business of EMF Science, lifts the curtain on that.
The content in this post is extracted from an episode of The Healthier Tech Podcast where R explains his journey to The Dr. Phil Show in detail. So, if you haven’t already, subscribe to the podcast to listen to the full episode and many others to learn the truth about modern technology and how to make your relationship with it a safer, healthier one.
The Business of EMF Science
The business of EMF science is a series that documents the history of EMF science, how we discovered that the EMF we’re all exposed to today isn’t safe, and how wireless companies try hard to suppress that fact.
In the first post in this series, we look at how prolonged exposure to EMF, at levels below what regulations allow, can cause problems ranging from cataracts and heart problems to testicular degeneration.
In the second post, we dive deep into the works of Drs. Lai & Singh who, with their experiments, found that prolonged EMF exposure can cause DNA damage, which can eventually take a carcinogenic turn.
We’ll also see how Motorola, one of the most successful cell phone manufacturers of that time, tried to discredit, defund, and get Drs. Lai & Singh fired from their jobs.
The Business of EMF science is a seven-part series where we’ll take you on a journey to explore what we know about EMF so far, the people involved in discovering this information, and what wireless companies did and continues to do to keep real EMF information on the down low.
Check out The Business of EMF Science series for free on the SYB website.
Final Thoughts
The evidence demonstrating the adverse effects of EMF isn’t yet concrete. We still have a lot of research to do to finally remove every shred of doubt we have about it. But this also doesn’t mean we should ignore the thousands of research studies dating back decades that say EMF is harmful.
It doesn’t hurt to be on the safer side. If science unites 30 years from now and unanimously agrees that EMF harms human health, what good will it do? By then, the damage will be done. And we’ll have gone so far that going back and fixing it won’t be an option anymore.
We’re not asking you to believe everything we say. Our simple mission is to make complex science accessible to the general population. And the decision is yours.
We also don’t ask you to quit the convenience of technology. We just want you to create a healthier relationship with it. This way, you can enjoy modern technology’s benefits while being on the safer side of the equation.
And we have a ton of free resources explaining how you can do that. So, check them out. I recommend starting with our SYB Healthy Living Tips page.
