| |

Expert Responses to Psychology Today’s ‘Tin Foil Hat’ Commentary: Kent Chamberlin and Magda Havas

As reported in late August by Safe Tech International, Psychology Today recently published a blog post, Tin Foil Hats: Tired Trope or Sign of the Times? From clothing to electronic devices, modern-day tin foil hats are big business,’ by Joe Pierre M.D.

Request for ‘Psychology Today’ to Retract ‘Conspiracy Theory Expert’ View of ‘Electrohypersensitivity’ includes commentary by safety advocate Sharon Noble of Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia.How can a magazine supposedly dedicated to helping people with emotional problems, to educating and enabling communication about such important issues allow an article that mocks and ridicules science? For decades scientists have researched and reported on the biological effects of wireless radiation, yet Dr. Pierre is totally unaware of the 1000s of studies. Effects range from tinnitus and brain fog, cardiac irregularities to neurological problems and cancers.

Kent Chamberlin

As first reported by the respected Australian site EMF Facts Consultancy, Kent Chamberlin contacted the editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

Kent Chamberlin PhD, Professor & Chair Emeritus, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, was a member of the bipartisan commission formed in the state of New Hampshire to explore the health and environmental effects of wireless radiation. He notes that he himself was initially dismissive of concerns, before reviewing the science. The final report of the state commission is here.  

Dr. Chamberlin’s correspondence sent to the Editor-in-Chief of Psychology Today can be found here.

In the letter, Dr. Chamberlin wrote:

Facilitating the spread of information that does not accurately portray real risks, as is the case with Dr. Pierre’s article, could easily be construed as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. The information presented in the article is misleading and incomplete and has the very real potential to result in harm.

And in conclusion:

I end this letter with a positive suggestion. Your publication is highly regarded, and it has a
broad reach. This provides an opportunity to bring about significant changes in your field.
As an example, you might want to consider running a series of articles covering: the neuropsychiatric effects of wireless radiation, approaches used by medical professionals to diagnose those effects, means for lowering wireless radiation exposure, and how to integrate radiation exposure issues into a counseling practice. I can assist in finding qualified individuals to address each of these issues, and I am happy to meet with you to discuss.

Magda Havas

Since the 1990s, Dr. Havas’s research focuses primarily on the biological effects of electromagnetic pollution including radio frequency radiationelectromagnetic fieldsdirty electricity, and ground current. Dr. Havas works with diabetics as well as with individuals who have multiple sclerosis, tinnitus, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and those who are electrically hypersensitive. She also conducts research on sick building syndrome as it relates to power quality in schools. Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, Canada, received her B.Sc. in Biology and PhD in Environmental Toxicology at the University of Toronto. Her PhD was in the Canadian Arctic at the Smoking Hills, along the coast of Cape Bathurst. She is renowned for her research in acid rain, in addition the electro-smog.

Dr. Havas’s Letter to the Editor of Psychology Today is here.

In the letter Dr. Havas wrote:

My objection, in addition to name calling–which is a form of bullying–is based on science as I have been working with people who have an intolerance to electromagnetic frequencies for decades. We have also done studies with plants and, presumably, their response isn’t psychosomatic either. My research is focused on identifying objective biophysical markers of EHS (Electrohypersensitivity) and I give lectures for Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit to doctors and health care providers on this topic. Here is some of the evidence that EHS is a real biophysical/biochemical response to the stress brought on by (blinded) exposure to EMF/EMR.

Dr. Havas provided the magazine with references and resources regarding exposures and diabetes, M.S., heart rate variability, blood viscosity, and EHS.

An earlier commentary on the controversial blog post published by Psychology Today that identifies some of the subtle psychological aspects of tin foil marginalization can be found here.

Spread the love

Sign-up to receive current EMF NEWS and most recent BLOGS


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.