4 ms·

These are physical changes. Medical testing has revealed the embassy workers developed changes to the white matter tracts that let different parts of the brain

These are physical changes. Medical testing has revealed the embassy workers developed changes to the white matter tracts that let different parts of the brain communicate.

wyldfire 8y ago
How did we, the public, get the evidence of the medical testing? Do we have the actual imaging or the testimony of the physicians who treated them? Aside: wouldn't they need permission from the patients in order to reveal the diagnosis?
- will_brown 8y ago
  Because 21 of 24 of them were treated by UPenn doctors who published an article about it in the Journal of The American Medical Association. As you might expect the government was screwing these employees on treatments and reimbursements, so a number of them hired a lawyer who is pretty well known for these types of cases against the government. He has also been on record about what’s really going on and even represented another government employee in the 90’s who had similar issues, where the NSA confirmed they have knowledge microwaves have been actively used against us. I believe many of the people and their spouses (who are also having these issues) want full transparency.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    do you have a link about the previous case? i'd like to read about it
    - will_brown 8y ago
      The lawyer is Mark Zaid. I’m guessing you can search the former client Mike Beck and see what you come up with, but I think due to his position and it not being 24 people from an embassy, most of the facts remain confidential/classified. The following is a excerpt from a Miami Hearld news article: In a separate case, another Zaid client — Mike Beck, a retired National Security Agency counterintelligence officer — suffered a "potentially similar attack" in the 1990s when he traveled to an unidentified country. Years later, Beck and a companion on the trip were found to be suffering from Parkinson's disease. A confidential report convinced him that his illness was linked to a covert attack with a weapon that used microwaves, Beck told The Washington Post last year. "My gut is that this has been going on for a while," said Zaid. "The NSA has revealed to me in an unclassified setting that a foreign power has used a microwave weapon against people."
      - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        Weapon seems unlikely, tool seems more likely. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) Something like that, powered by a couple of microwave beams out of phase which constructively interfere on intersection would allow you to reduce the power of each beam. If your head were in the area of constructive interference though, you’d have damage. So an attack in the sense of depraved indifference to potential harm, but probably not meant to be an attack.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        The beams would have to each be very close to the danger level. So not something like that.
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        Using separate beams to constructively interfere allows for at least half the necessary power being delivered per beam. The more beams you use the greater the effect and the less each beam needs to carry on its own. This is not my field, but it seems like you could have beam be quite weak until the necessary constructive interference occurs. What am I missing? I’m not being sarcastic, I’d truly like to know.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Even 1/20 of dangerous is quite a lot of energy and vastly more than you would need to surveil. And unless the beams are exceptionally narrow and all aimed at the exact same spot, you're going to be filling the room with smaller peaks and it will be very noticeable as heat and touch and more.
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        I see, thanks for the information, I stand corrected.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>These are physical changes. Well, you say changes, but really all we have is that these 24 people were scanned later but not before taking that assignment. You can’t really say changes, you have no idea what these brains looked like before Cuba. You know, if you care about scientific method and all...
- will_brown 8y ago
  I’m not saying changes the treating physicians and scientists at UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair are saying changes. You can apply the scientific method and let me know how likely it is that 24 random people became government employees and all had the same/similar brain abnormalities, further this random group with brain abnormalities were all randomly assigned to the same embassy and around the same time they all began to complain of the same/similar symptoms and none of them ever had prior mris/hearing tests/balance tests dispute all of them living their entire lives with brain abnormalities.
  - cjhopman 8y ago
    No, the treating physicians aren't saying changes. They are saying, of the 21 patients given an MRI, 3 had abnormalities.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    > 24 random people became government employees and all had the same/similar brain abnormalities Only 21 were checked afaik, and out of those only 3 showed something significant in the MRI, which the researches concluded "the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors", according to their published report [1]. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168
aylmao 8y ago
Did it though? I commented this on another sub-thread, but it seems to be relevant here too. Straight from the report: > MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). This sounds to me like the MRI showed most people were normal. It continues: > There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. Three out of 21 patients doesn't sound like a lot. The researches agree that 3 people showing something somewhat unexpected isn't significant, and it's probably due to other diseases or conditions: > The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors. Advanced structural and functional neuroimaging studies are ongoing. So it's not that "MRIs are subjective" or "are as bogus as lie detectors". Rather, it's the people forming an interpretation of what the results mean (especially those who are not experts, as we can see that the experts agreed only three of the 21 people examined show something, and it's probably unrelated). [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168

These are physical changes. Medical testing has revealed the embassy workers developed changes to the white matter tracts that let different parts of the brain communicate.

wyldfire 8y ago

How did we, the public, get the evidence of the medical testing? Do we have the actual imaging or the testimony of the physicians who treated them? Aside: wouldn't they need permission from the patients in order to reveal the diagnosis?

will_brown 8y ago
Because 21 of 24 of them were treated by UPenn doctors who published an article about it in the Journal of The American Medical Association. As you might expect the government was screwing these employees on treatments and reimbursements, so a number of them hired a lawyer who is pretty well known for these types of cases against the government. He has also been on record about what’s really going on and even represented another government employee in the 90’s who had similar issues, where the NSA confirmed they have knowledge microwaves have been actively used against us. I believe many of the people and their spouses (who are also having these issues) want full transparency.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  do you have a link about the previous case? i'd like to read about it
  - will_brown 8y ago
    The lawyer is Mark Zaid. I’m guessing you can search the former client Mike Beck and see what you come up with, but I think due to his position and it not being 24 people from an embassy, most of the facts remain confidential/classified. The following is a excerpt from a Miami Hearld news article: In a separate case, another Zaid client — Mike Beck, a retired National Security Agency counterintelligence officer — suffered a "potentially similar attack" in the 1990s when he traveled to an unidentified country. Years later, Beck and a companion on the trip were found to be suffering from Parkinson's disease. A confidential report convinced him that his illness was linked to a covert attack with a weapon that used microwaves, Beck told The Washington Post last year. "My gut is that this has been going on for a while," said Zaid. "The NSA has revealed to me in an unclassified setting that a foreign power has used a microwave weapon against people."
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      Weapon seems unlikely, tool seems more likely. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) Something like that, powered by a couple of microwave beams out of phase which constructively interfere on intersection would allow you to reduce the power of each beam. If your head were in the area of constructive interference though, you’d have damage. So an attack in the sense of depraved indifference to potential harm, but probably not meant to be an attack.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        The beams would have to each be very close to the danger level. So not something like that.
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        Using separate beams to constructively interfere allows for at least half the necessary power being delivered per beam. The more beams you use the greater the effect and the less each beam needs to carry on its own. This is not my field, but it seems like you could have beam be quite weak until the necessary constructive interference occurs. What am I missing? I’m not being sarcastic, I’d truly like to know.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Even 1/20 of dangerous is quite a lot of energy and vastly more than you would need to surveil. And unless the beams are exceptionally narrow and all aimed at the exact same spot, you're going to be filling the room with smaller peaks and it will be very noticeable as heat and touch and more.
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        I see, thanks for the information, I stand corrected.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

>These are physical changes. Well, you say changes, but really all we have is that these 24 people were scanned later but not before taking that assignment. You can’t really say changes, you have no idea what these brains looked like before Cuba. You know, if you care about scientific method and all...

will_brown 8y ago
I’m not saying changes the treating physicians and scientists at UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair are saying changes. You can apply the scientific method and let me know how likely it is that 24 random people became government employees and all had the same/similar brain abnormalities, further this random group with brain abnormalities were all randomly assigned to the same embassy and around the same time they all began to complain of the same/similar symptoms and none of them ever had prior mris/hearing tests/balance tests dispute all of them living their entire lives with brain abnormalities.
- cjhopman 8y ago
  No, the treating physicians aren't saying changes. They are saying, of the 21 patients given an MRI, 3 had abnormalities.
- aylmao 8y ago
  > 24 random people became government employees and all had the same/similar brain abnormalities Only 21 were checked afaik, and out of those only 3 showed something significant in the MRI, which the researches concluded "the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors", according to their published report [1]. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168

aylmao 8y ago

Did it though? I commented this on another sub-thread, but it seems to be relevant here too. Straight from the report: > MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). This sounds to me like the MRI showed most people were normal. It continues: > There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. Three out of 21 patients doesn't sound like a lot. The researches agree that 3 people showing something somewhat unexpected isn't significant, and it's probably due to other diseases or conditions: > The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors. Advanced structural and functional neuroimaging studies are ongoing. So it's not that "MRIs are subjective" or "are as bogus as lie detectors". Rather, it's the people forming an interpretation of what the results mean (especially those who are not experts, as we can see that the experts agreed only three of the 21 people examined show something, and it's probably unrelated). [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168