9 ms·

> It may or may not have been an attack but what’s the explaination for 24 embassy staff members randomly experiencing the same symptoms and all showing brain a

> It may or may not have been an attack but what’s the explaination for 24 embassy staff members randomly experiencing the same symptoms and all showing brain abnormalities? I haven't followed the story in detail, but the claim of "brain abnormalities" appear to come from a small number of doctors who likely were primed with irrelevant information. "Doctor, take a look at these CT scans of diplomats in Cuba who might have been attacked using a sonic weapon." It is not far-fetched to imagine that this priming caused the doctors to see brain abnormalities where none existed. Oh, and someone who was down-voted to dead status already linked to an article from 2017 in which the Cubans said they believed crickets were the culprit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18837926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18837926 See also this blog post, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2018/04/07/bad-science-havana-attack/#.XDIhHVxKg2x http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2018/04/07/ba..., which in not so kind words calls the original study junk: "The condition suffered by the US diplomats in Cuba has been labelled “mysterious” (Rubin, 2018). The real mystery though is how such a poor neuropsychogical report could have passed the scrutiny of expert reviewers in a first class outlet."

will_brown 8y ago
>the claim of "brain abnormalities" appear to come from a small number of doctors who likely were primed with irrelevant information The study was published by the UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair (I’d recommend reading it) by the treating physicians. It’s funny you would opine the treating physicians have irrelevant information. Yet, like many in this thread you tend to gravitate towards doctors/scientist making diagnoses sight unseen who have no patient information. I’d say the real mystery is how anyone on HN could ignore the study from the UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair who examined and evaluated the patients completed with objective tests like MRI and hearing. As if that’s not enough you say >it’s not far fetected this priming caused the doctors to see brain abnormalities where none existed I’d like to know how the doctors bias manifested to the MRI and hearing testing. And I’m wondering why your logic doesn’t get applied to the scientists and the neurologist (who is clearly biased) who hasn’t examined the patients and has diagnosed them as suffering from psychosomatic mass hysteria.
- bjourne 8y ago
  You are clearly arguing by appeal to authority. The staff at The University of Pennsylvania Center for Brain Injury and Repair is not infallible. Sometimes bad science is produced by even renowned institutions. This is what the study says about the MRI scans: "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%). 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. 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." Translated to English: Only a few minor brain abnormalities were found. Those could all have been the result of prior, more natural causes. The MRI scans themselves aren't available, presumably because of "security" reasons. Personally, I don't see why the crickets theory would be implausible at all. Listening at their sound for just 20 seconds was enough to give me shivers and ringing ears. I'd easily go insane if I had to hear them every night for several months straight.
  - apcragg 8y ago
    It's not arguing by appealing to authority when they are the experts in a field...
    - treis 8y ago
      That's exactly what appealing to authority is. They are an authority precisely because they are experts in the field
      - jerf 8y ago
        Yes, but "appeal to actual authority" is a positive description of an argument, not a fallacy. The fallacy is appeal to irrelevant or incorrect authority. This is like the third time in the past couple of months I've had to make this point. Is there someone out there actually telling people that using what authorities say in an argument is always wrong?
TomMckenny 8y ago
Every MRI scan is primed with information. "grandma is forgetful", "billy fell off the roof" But if MRIs were that subjective, they would not have the success rate they do. It is more reasonable to assume something happen to the embassy staff than that MRIs are as bogus as lie detectors.
- perseusprime11 8y ago
  Also, every brain is abnormal in some way. This and priming together caused the doctors to conclude wrongly. It's like therapy, garbage in and garbage out.
- aylmao 8y ago
  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
- rasz 8y ago
  nothing wrong with MRI indeed https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...

will_brown 8y ago

>the claim of "brain abnormalities" appear to come from a small number of doctors who likely were primed with irrelevant information The study was published by the UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair (I’d recommend reading it) by the treating physicians. It’s funny you would opine the treating physicians have irrelevant information. Yet, like many in this thread you tend to gravitate towards doctors/scientist making diagnoses sight unseen who have no patient information. I’d say the real mystery is how anyone on HN could ignore the study from the UPenn Center for Brain Injury and Repair who examined and evaluated the patients completed with objective tests like MRI and hearing. As if that’s not enough you say >it’s not far fetected this priming caused the doctors to see brain abnormalities where none existed I’d like to know how the doctors bias manifested to the MRI and hearing testing. And I’m wondering why your logic doesn’t get applied to the scientists and the neurologist (who is clearly biased) who hasn’t examined the patients and has diagnosed them as suffering from psychosomatic mass hysteria.

bjourne 8y ago
You are clearly arguing by appeal to authority. The staff at The University of Pennsylvania Center for Brain Injury and Repair is not infallible. Sometimes bad science is produced by even renowned institutions. This is what the study says about the MRI scans: "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%). 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. 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." Translated to English: Only a few minor brain abnormalities were found. Those could all have been the result of prior, more natural causes. The MRI scans themselves aren't available, presumably because of "security" reasons. Personally, I don't see why the crickets theory would be implausible at all. Listening at their sound for just 20 seconds was enough to give me shivers and ringing ears. I'd easily go insane if I had to hear them every night for several months straight.
- apcragg 8y ago
  It's not arguing by appealing to authority when they are the experts in a field...
  - treis 8y ago
    That's exactly what appealing to authority is. They are an authority precisely because they are experts in the field
    - jerf 8y ago
      Yes, but "appeal to actual authority" is a positive description of an argument, not a fallacy. The fallacy is appeal to irrelevant or incorrect authority. This is like the third time in the past couple of months I've had to make this point. Is there someone out there actually telling people that using what authorities say in an argument is always wrong?

TomMckenny 8y ago

Every MRI scan is primed with information. "grandma is forgetful", "billy fell off the roof" But if MRIs were that subjective, they would not have the success rate they do. It is more reasonable to assume something happen to the embassy staff than that MRIs are as bogus as lie detectors.

perseusprime11 8y ago
Also, every brain is abnormal in some way. This and priming together caused the doctors to conclude wrongly. It's like therapy, garbage in and garbage out.
aylmao 8y ago
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
rasz 8y ago
nothing wrong with MRI indeed https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...