It's disturbing that our intelligence apparatus seems unable to accept the obvious conclusion that Havana Syndrome is mass hysteria. I fear they're caught in some sort of loop where investigating it _creates_ cases, which increases their certainty, which causes them to allocate more resources to investigating it, etc.
this is not just a mass hysteria/placebo/negative-placebo effect.
"Among patients compared with controls, there were significantly greater ventral diencephalon and cerebellar gray matter volumes and significantly smaller frontal, occipital, and parietal lobe white matter volumes; significantly lower mean diffusivity in the inferior vermis of the cerebellum (patients: 7.71 × 10−4 mm2/s; controls: 8.98 × 10−4 mm2/s; difference, −1.27 × 10−4 [95% CI, −1.93 × 10−4 to −6.17 × 10−5] mm2/s; P < .001); and significantly lower mean functional connectivity in the auditory subnetwork (patients: 0.45; controls: 0.61; difference, −0.16 [95% CI, −0.26 to −0.05]; P = .003) and visuospatial subnetwork (patients: 0.30; controls: 0.40; difference, −0.10 [95% CI, −0.16 to −0.04]; P = .002) but not in the executive control subnetwork (patients: 0.24; controls: 0.25; difference: −0.016 [95% CI, −0.04 to 0.01]; P = .23).
I don't have the expertise to critique these findings, but they smell very weird (tiny sample size, control group that seems weirdly specific), and "an investigation that seems incredibly motivated by a particular conclusion managed to find the evidence it was looking for" still makes a lot more sense than, "some organization is injuring US diplomats, all over the world, with no clear goals or demands, with a wide constellation of symptoms, that an awful lot like mass hysteria."
If there's really a there there and they solve the "who, what, why", then I'm happy to eat crow. But I don't think they will because I don't think there is.
> I don't have the expertise to critique these findings, but they smell very weird (tiny sample size, control group that seems weirdly specific)
Huh? I think you're misunderstanding the situation here and misapplying a heuristic. That sample size of 40 people may be the universe of cases (at the time) or a significant fraction of it, and I don't know what could be "weirdly specific" about "48 demographically similar healthy controls."
Perhaps there's a nuance I'm missing, but it's odd to me that you'd look at 48 _government employees_ and not as many people off the street of a similar age etc. as you could afford. Is there reason to believe people who work in government have different brains? Are we trying to see if these government employees are different than other government employees, or that they're different from _people in general_?
40 is a significant fraction of 200, but it's still a small number. You subject 40 people to a whole battery of imaging and examination, and I'm sure you'll find something odd in at least one of the tests. "Intensive and repeated investigation of a small population yields artifacts, and there is no plot" seems the stronger case to me.
If there is a plot, then I'm sure the CIA can solve it. That's what they do, and they have all the resources in the world to do it. If they don't solve it, then I think we should accept that there was no plot and that mass hysteria is the best explanation. Similarly if they do solve it, then we have to accept that.
Several years in, the explanations are shifting and vague, which is the hallmark of mirage.
I think you need before and after comparisons, because people "who believe they were subject to weird stuff have smaller brains" might be confusing cause and effect
>It's disturbing that our intelligence apparatus seems unable to accept the obvious conclusion that Havana Syndrome is mass hysteria
They are intentionally ignoring the possibility. The major report released by the government claiming microwave attacks was the most likely stated that a psychogenic cause fit all available evidence but they lacked the psychiatric evaluations to call it the cause.
I don't think it's 'mass hysteria' - There is lots of evidence that suggests whatever people were exposed to caused some form of brain damage confirmed by MRI scans.[0]
They just cant figure out exactly what caused it. I think a recent study pointed towards pesticides, but the evidence was pretty lacking.
I really doubt that 'mass hysteria' is causing people to get brain damage that shows up on MRI scans.
That is complete nonsense. The study you're quoting was discredited. They essentially grouped a bunch of random symptoms together and said they were the same thing. If you run enough tests for different things you'll eventually find something "wrong", that doesn't mean there actually is.
People can't walk, have semi or permanent headaches, have to retire early, etc. People's families (including children) have been seriously ill as well.
And you are convinced hundreds of people are making this up?
You're being downvoted as if the U.S. intelligence apparatus hasn't done this before. Using media statements to sway public opinion on specific issues is a standard part of their playbook and has been for decades.
This quote seems to suggest that they've ruled Cuba out:
> The director says he is seriously considering the "very strong possibility" that the syndrome is the result of intentional actions, adding that there are a limited number of "potential suspects" with the capability to carry out an action so widely across the globe.
The US has diplomatic and economic relationships with plenty of oppressive regimes around the world, not sure why Cuba should be an exception. Aside from some 60-year-old egg on their face related to failed coup attempts, that is (though in this case, bacon may be the better breakfast food analogy).
