Keith - Thank you so much for this wonderful post and interview. I appreciate the clarity with which both you and Andrew describe exactly the deception that is happening with scientific research. And you bring forth the subject of people who have no awareness that their body is still being harmed, regardless of whether they are consciously aware of the effects or not.
Presenting this as a high or low threshold of awareness was very helpful. I'm thinking that a low threshold of awareness means that someone is more sensitive, and a high threshold means a person is not sensitive to, does not feel the effects. This gives me a better way of thinking about the various devices, pendants, chips, etc. that claim to protect against harm.
What the effect of these so called "helpful" devices may be is to increase the threshold of awareness for sensitive persons, so that they move into the high threshold category, where they no longer perceive the harm being done (although the biological harm still continues). In this way greater harm is done, but the sensitive person now has a false sense of security that all is well - much the same as the high threshold person who also operates in this manner, thinking all is well (when this is not the case at all). I think that when Andrew was talking about this he talked about the devices lowering the threshold of awareness, but what he might have been meaning to say was just the opposite. That felt a bit confusing, but I understood his message and feel so grateful for this additional way to explain this to people.
I am no longer an activist, although I still have a large mailing list - the Emf Aware group. And, although I've trained as an Emf home inspector, I realized I'm too sensitive myself to do that work. My only goal now is to educate people,- to provide them with information and to help anyone willing to listen and ready to let that information in. Thank you so much Keith for continuing to light the way for me and so many others!
Thank you for such a thoughtful and careful reflection on this portion of the conversation.
After rereading Andrew’s exact wording, I think the key distinction is that he was not describing devices that merely suppress awareness while biological effects continue unchanged. Rather, his emphasis was repeatedly on reducing the level of exposure itself below the person’s subjective detection threshold.
In other words, his framework was:
some individuals consciously detect electromagnetic exposures at lower levels than others. If a device genuinely reduces the amount of energy reaching the body, then by definition it may reduce triggering for that person because the exposure itself has been reduced.
That’s why he immediately moved to the metallic sphere example:
not masking awareness,
but preventing energy from getting in.
And that also explains why the conversation ultimately landed on practical reduction strategies:
shielding,
distance,
source removal,
and measurable attenuation.
I also think your broader caution remains very important:
if a product merely changes perception without actually reducing exposure, that would be a very different matter entirely. Andrew was quite clear that he had never seen evidence supporting mysterious “energy balancing” explanations divorced from actual reduction in field exposure.
Thank you again for such a thoughtful comment and for the work you’ve done helping educate others over the years. I deeply respect the discernment and humility reflected in your journey.
Thank you so much for this further clarification Keith, especially highlighting what truly works - practical reduction strategies. I say this over and over and also remind people that their own devices and exposures are the place to start. I get so discouraged sometimes when people just don't seem to get it and persist in looking everywhere else instead, hoping to find truth - when it's right there in front of their eyes in plain sight. I have to admit, though, that I was the same way once and it took an extreme wake up call for me to finally see. I don't wish this experience on anyone, which is why I appreciate you for presenting this information so clearly and giving me better language for sharing.
Keith - Thank you so much for this wonderful post and interview. I appreciate the clarity with which both you and Andrew describe exactly the deception that is happening with scientific research. And you bring forth the subject of people who have no awareness that their body is still being harmed, regardless of whether they are consciously aware of the effects or not.
Presenting this as a high or low threshold of awareness was very helpful. I'm thinking that a low threshold of awareness means that someone is more sensitive, and a high threshold means a person is not sensitive to, does not feel the effects. This gives me a better way of thinking about the various devices, pendants, chips, etc. that claim to protect against harm.
What the effect of these so called "helpful" devices may be is to increase the threshold of awareness for sensitive persons, so that they move into the high threshold category, where they no longer perceive the harm being done (although the biological harm still continues). In this way greater harm is done, but the sensitive person now has a false sense of security that all is well - much the same as the high threshold person who also operates in this manner, thinking all is well (when this is not the case at all). I think that when Andrew was talking about this he talked about the devices lowering the threshold of awareness, but what he might have been meaning to say was just the opposite. That felt a bit confusing, but I understood his message and feel so grateful for this additional way to explain this to people.
I am no longer an activist, although I still have a large mailing list - the Emf Aware group. And, although I've trained as an Emf home inspector, I realized I'm too sensitive myself to do that work. My only goal now is to educate people,- to provide them with information and to help anyone willing to listen and ready to let that information in. Thank you so much Keith for continuing to light the way for me and so many others!
Thank you for such a thoughtful and careful reflection on this portion of the conversation.
After rereading Andrew’s exact wording, I think the key distinction is that he was not describing devices that merely suppress awareness while biological effects continue unchanged. Rather, his emphasis was repeatedly on reducing the level of exposure itself below the person’s subjective detection threshold.
In other words, his framework was:
some individuals consciously detect electromagnetic exposures at lower levels than others. If a device genuinely reduces the amount of energy reaching the body, then by definition it may reduce triggering for that person because the exposure itself has been reduced.
That’s why he immediately moved to the metallic sphere example:
not masking awareness,
but preventing energy from getting in.
And that also explains why the conversation ultimately landed on practical reduction strategies:
shielding,
distance,
source removal,
and measurable attenuation.
I also think your broader caution remains very important:
if a product merely changes perception without actually reducing exposure, that would be a very different matter entirely. Andrew was quite clear that he had never seen evidence supporting mysterious “energy balancing” explanations divorced from actual reduction in field exposure.
Thank you again for such a thoughtful comment and for the work you’ve done helping educate others over the years. I deeply respect the discernment and humility reflected in your journey.
Thank you so much for this further clarification Keith, especially highlighting what truly works - practical reduction strategies. I say this over and over and also remind people that their own devices and exposures are the place to start. I get so discouraged sometimes when people just don't seem to get it and persist in looking everywhere else instead, hoping to find truth - when it's right there in front of their eyes in plain sight. I have to admit, though, that I was the same way once and it took an extreme wake up call for me to finally see. I don't wish this experience on anyone, which is why I appreciate you for presenting this information so clearly and giving me better language for sharing.