Request for ‘Psychology Today’ to Retract ‘Conspiracy Theory Expert’ View of ‘Electrohypersensitivity’


By Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International, with Sharon Noble

Psychology Today (‘Health, Help, Happiness, and Find a Therapist’) recently published a blog “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.

B.N. Frank responded with “Mental Health Magazine Mocks Federally Recognized Disability and “Havana Syndrome” Victims Receiving Gov’t Compensation” at Activist Post.

“EMF/RF/5G & Psychology Today: Humanity Must Take A Stand Against Ridiculing, Patriarchal, Discriminatory ‘HealthCare’ pointed to some of the subtle psychological tools used in the Psychology Today article and was published by Natural Blaze.

Sharon Noble also reached out to Psychology Today.

Sharon Noble Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Sharon Noble is a highly respected leader working on the issues of ‘Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation’ in Canada and worldwide with her colleagues at Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia.

Her independent, non-industry investigations into smart meter fires and her research concerning smart meter opt out fees are highly valued ‘citizen science’ resources. She is a frequent guest on Canada’s “the Goddard Report.”

VIDEO: Few Health Studies Done on 5 G Risk. Sharon Noble – January 25, 2018

Sharon Noble Response to Psychology Today

“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.

And, yes, even electromagnetic sensitivity. How can a medical doctor purport to have expertise sufficient to write an article for such a prestigious journal and be so ignorant about the subject? How can Psychology Today publish it without having confirmed both his qualifications and the accuracy of the information about which he writes with such authority?

May I suggest that a redaction occur and in its place an article by a true expert on the topic such as Dr. Devra Davis (www.ehtrust.org) or Dr. Dominique Belpomme.

See his recent report “Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment”

For your edification, here is a spreadsheet with hundreds of studies published and peer-reviewed since 2015 https://preventcancernow.ca/hundreds-of-recent-scientific-reports-show-harms-from-radiofrequency-radiation/

An immediate retraction of this blog would demonstrate a good faith effort to amend this seriously flawed article. – Sharon Noble

Are False Narratives Being Projected Onto 5G Opponents?

“Projection” has been identified in the psychology field as a defense mechanism.


‘Tin foil hats’ is an example.

Projection can be intentionally weaponized offensively, including scapegoating, for any number of reasons – for example, when monopoly industries fund academic researchers, when shareholders of media outlets own telecom stock, and when the media is dominated by telecom industry advertising.


Those raising questions and reporting harm associated with increasing juxtaposed exposures to artificial, man-made frequencies have previously been the recipients of earlier waves of projection and scape-goating, for example during the covid lockdowns. The narrative:

  • portrayed 5G opponents as destructive, irrational extremists engaged in property destruction (burning telecommunications towers)
  • made the claim that 5G opponents were afraid that the “5G waves were spreading covid” while diverting attention away from legitimate health and environmental concerns about RF exposure, including 5G millimeter wave technology
  • implied that 5G activists were recklessly threatening health and public safety by interfering with emergency communications
  • Implied that foreign, hostile interests were responsible for stoking unfounded fears

The media and official government channels provided no evidence that those responsible for reported fires had any previous connection to 5G opposition, for example, by participating in protest actions, or being involved in any established 5G opposition communities. As noted by Devra Davis in “Burning 5G Towers Across Europe is Harming Health, Wildlife And The Climate” “Without question, burning private property is a crime. This should be stopped. So should the degradation of our environment by untested technologies.”

The narrative that activist groups set fire to telecommunications infrastructure over fears about 5G spreading covid is an urban myth for which there has never been an independent review or investigation. Activist groups did, however, light candles during a day of action at the solstice during lockdown.

SOURCE: Global Protest Days Against 5G – A History – Safe Tech International

Why have false beliefs and conspiracy theories become so powerful?

On Sept. 1, the author of the Psychology Today article, Dr. Joe Pierre, will be giving a talk on the topic “Why have false beliefs and conspiracy theories become so powerful?” at the Commonwealth Club of California, which is supported by AT&T and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, among others.

“False narratives pose a real danger to democracy, to our health, and to society.”  “In this first part of our series, Dr. Joe Pierre, health sciences clinical professor at UCLA and specialist in delusional thinking and conspiracy theories, will discuss the age-old psychological reasons that conspiracy theories and other false narratives have been successful throughout human history. He will also look at how false narratives have been noticeably empowered and accelerated during the past few years by COVID isolation and modern technologies, among other factors.”

It is unlikely that he will be discussing the case history of ridicule and discrimination towards individuals questioning prevailing narratives about radio frequencies and 5G, including the covid-fire narrative.

It is also unlikely that he will address the fact that during covid, connectivity became conflated with wireless and 5G, when hard-wired connections are safer, faster, more secure.

The delusional thinking behind current ‘safety testing’ for frequency-based technologies won’t be included, nor will the fact that increased energy consumption is required to support ‘faster. more powerful connections.

The recent study, “Evidence For A Health Risk By RF On Humans Living Around Mobile Phone Base Stations” most likely will not be addressed.

Nor will the French court order requiring a 4G antenna to be turned over cow health concerns, after milk production had dropped by 15-20% in the days following the antenna installation, and 40 of his 200 cows had died. “Philippe Molhérat, the mayor of Mazeyrat-d’Allier, who had previously authorised the antenna’s installation, testified in favour of the farmer.  He said that he feared “a catastrophe on a human level” and that his “concerns” were growing for the 1,500 inhabitants of his village.”

The August 2022 Court Ruling in the United Kingdom requiring an Education Health Care Plan (EHCP) for UK child on the basis of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) probably won’t be mentioned either.

Citizen Science Identifying Regulatory Gaps

In her presentation, ”Citizen Science as Key Components for Identifying Regulatory Gaps: Lessons from Love Canal, Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon & Other Man‐Made Disasters,” Prof. Elizabeth Glass Geltman explained,

”In the past few years, a robust debate erupted within the scientific community as to the appropriate role of citizens in gathering and presenting scientific data for use in policy development. Most modern citizen science projects are designed by scientists and ask citizens to take part in gathering data using protocols established by the scientists. Citizen participation is used as a means to expand the number of subjects or samples while at the same time saving costs. While this model of citizen science is relatively new, the concept of citizenry gathering data to present to government and academic scientists because of health and other concerns in order to influence policy is not new.

For example, in 1979 the Love Canal Homeowners Association (LCHA) embarked on a study to present evidence of health concerns due to improper disposal of hazardous waste in their neighborhood. This study examines historical health studies conducted by citizen groups to present to government in order to identify regulatory gaps. The study compares the data gathered by citizens to the studies designed by experts in a variety of emergency settings including Love Canal, Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. The study concludes that while citizens groups may have an inherent bias in gathering data, scientific bias also presented challenges from experts in ultimate study designs. In certain events such as the LCHA study in response to Love Canal, the citizen science was closer to real environmental health concerns than the study developed by the experts. The paper concludes by putting citizen science in a new context.”

As Sharon Noble noted, “Dr. Pierre is a psychologist and does not claim to have any education or experience relevant to the information he promoted in his blog. Psychology Today should be held responsible for allowing this to go under their banner. It seriously threatens their credibility.”

Scrutiny is advised about the weaponizing of terms used in the Psychology Today article, including ‘irrational,’ ‘conspiracy,’ ‘tin foil hat,’ ‘paranoia,’ ‘ mistrustful,’ and ‘vulnerable to misinformation,’ to dismiss citizen science.

Tremendous caution is required in an environment where decisions are being made to protect economic concerns, rather than human health and the environment, as was the case with the Berkeley Right to Know legal decision. “The Court said that the argument all comes down to dealing with the fact the FCC has to consider both the health and safety of people buying cellphones and the health and safety of the cellphone industry.”

As the Sesame Street song goes, “One of these things is not like the others.”

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.