Well, if I know the typical populace, which includes people who have conditions, or know loved ones with conditions, which make arrhythmia life-threatening, they would not regard such effects lightly.
But, sure, the GQ author may be guilty of using a mis-leading characterization of the induction of irregular heart patterns as the full "stopping" of heart patterns. ("Hey it's true it 'stopped' for a little," plausibly says the misleader.) Kind of like industry just may be guilty of mis-leading us in the opposite direction.
Oh, and thanks for not trying to make me substantiate the Joe Bageant quote. He's more of a dead, angry, neo-communist Hunter Thompson who values rhetorical effect above all, and will play loose with facts. I just like his rhetoric.
But back to the bottom line:
"The data as a whole clearly indicate that the heart responds to EM energy, particularly if it is pulsed and the pulses impinge at the right time in the cardiac cycle... [but] are not sufficient to draw conclusions about mediators.... [but, again,] the neural system is responsive to the energy."
Anyway, in my long experience, people let their preferred conclusions guide them persistently (if sub-consciously) to interpret perceptions, observations, and "facts" accordingly. The conclusive ends justify the means of getting there. When people want to persistently deny something, they can, easily. With that in mind, I just say "I exhort you draw your own conclusions -- you probably were going to do just that anyway."
Profitable as this conversation has been, I think I'll exit stage-left now.