"The Colossal Interview" with Professor Olle Johansson

Brain Entrainment, Neurodegeneration, and the Question of Long-Term Survival

Such a great conversation—particularly the potential frequency-following effects associated with both Wi-Fi and Duga (the so-called “Russian Woodpecker”). In this interview, we listen to these signals side by side—considering the eerily similar modulation. What becomes immediately striking is that both Duga and WiFi share low-frequency modulation (10Hz) that falls squarely within the range of human brain activity—close, but not the same as the normal resting state of 7.83Hz. That raises a question rarely asked out loud: can the nervous system be nudged, entrained, or subtly pulled away from its natural resting patterns by persistent, pulse modulated fields?

Does the brain—like any other receiver—exhibit a frequency-following response as a biophysical reality? We explore how this possibility might intersect with sleep disruption, loss of restorative phases, cognitive fatigue, and the now-common experience of people who cannot rest while surrounded by active wireless systems. The comparison to Duga is not rhetorical. It serves as a historical anchor, reminding us that large-scale, pulsed electromagnetic systems with similar modulation characteristics have existed before—and were powerful enough to be heard across continents.

Rather than asserting conclusions, the conversation presses into a question most discussions avoid: if the brain functions as intended within a narrow, stable electromagnetic environment, what happens when that environment is replaced with continuous, pulsed, synthetic rhythms that never existed before? And if the brain does follow frequency, even subtly, what are the long-term implications of living inside those signals—day and night, year after year?

Today I’m publishing the interview I call “The Colossal Interview”—over two hours with Professor Olle Johansson. When we began, Professor Johansson told me he was willing to go as long as I wanted, so I took him at his word—and kept going until his battery was dead.

Although the conversation was recorded in September, I chose first to release a series of short video clips on my YouTube channel, each drawn from the many directions this discussion traveled. It’s nearly impossible to give a single, meaningful title to a conversation that spans so many sub-topics. While I haven’t yet finished producing all of the shorts I have planned, I thought my followers might appreciate hearing the full conversation before the new year.

Along the way, we compare symptom patterns reported after ionizing exposure—X-rays and nuclear cleanup work—with those reported by people struggling under modern non-ionizing exposure. The overlap forces an uncomfortable question: if the symptom patterns resemble one another, what does that say about the confidence behind today’s “safe” assumptions?

We revisit Johansson’s early microscope work documenting immune activation in electrohypersensitive individuals—especially mast cells and dendritic cells—and the troubling parallel he observed when comparing those findings to biopsies from ionizing radiation injury. We consider whether what is labeled “hypersensitivity” may sometimes represent a biologically normal avoidance response to a biologically abnormal environment—and whether non-reactivity should always be interpreted as resilience.

Beyond sleep disruption and loss of repair phases, we discuss blood–brain barrier leakage, attention and learning effects in children, neurodegenerative decline, and the fertility signal—declining sperm metrics, possible mechanisms, and why multi-generation animal findings, if replicated, would carry sobering implications.

We look beyond human health as well—pollinator collapse, insect loss visible on a windshield, shrinking food diversity, and the economic consequences that follow when agriculture narrows to what can still be grown without robust pollination.

Finally, we pivot into engineering reality: why pushing antennas “farther away” can increase near-field exposure from cell phones, why measuring only one slice of the spectrum misleads, and why simplistic thermal safety models fail to describe living systems.

We end with the insistence that careful observation, effective avoidance, honest questions, and a precautionary approach are not irrational. They are responsible.

Originally, the full interview was available exclusively to those who make my work on substack possible through their financial support.

I now make it available to all my followers: