4 ms·

> Different people reported different symptoms. Most people did not report hearing any particular sounds. Of those who did, they said they heard very different

> Different people reported different symptoms. Most people did not report hearing any particular sounds. Of those who did, they said they heard very different sounds, and at different times and places. None of the sounds bore any similarity to sonic weapons. Only one person reported permanent hearing loss; and as nobody else did, we can safely assume that it was likely due to natural causes for that person. One reported a concussion with no apparent cause, but nobody else did either. So if we are looking for some external cause for these symptoms, we learn that it was probably not any one cause. It was a number of different causes, suggesting that these people were suffering from various unrelated problems. The point is that this event is inconsistent with any known diseases or injuries, including sonic devices, but completely consistent with other events of (self-reinforcing) mass hallucinations. No one is saying the affected have not suffered.

erentz 7y ago
But isn’t this just saying: “we have no existing evidence or test today showing a physiological illness so therefore we are going to call it this other imagined thing for which we also can’t prove, yet which has been repeatedly disproven over history.” All illness have at some time been “inconsistent with any known diseases or injuries”, MS, epilepsy, CFS, etc. What’s more likely at this point. I think lack of evidence in medicine shouldn’t be used as evidence for “psychogenic illness.” Just as lack of evidence for something in physics shouldn’t be used as evidence for “god put it there.” Doctors should get used to saying “we don’t know what’s wrong with these people yet” instead of trying to force an answer where there currently isn’t one. It’s far more correct and much kinder.
pfisch 7y ago
Show me an event that is conclusively psychogenic. At this point I feel like a psychogenic diagnosis is like attributing something to god/religion. When you say what the cause of something is the burden of proof is now on you to provide evidence of that.

erentz 7y ago

But isn’t this just saying: “we have no existing evidence or test today showing a physiological illness so therefore we are going to call it this other imagined thing for which we also can’t prove, yet which has been repeatedly disproven over history.” All illness have at some time been “inconsistent with any known diseases or injuries”, MS, epilepsy, CFS, etc. What’s more likely at this point. I think lack of evidence in medicine shouldn’t be used as evidence for “psychogenic illness.” Just as lack of evidence for something in physics shouldn’t be used as evidence for “god put it there.” Doctors should get used to saying “we don’t know what’s wrong with these people yet” instead of trying to force an answer where there currently isn’t one. It’s far more correct and much kinder.

pfisch 7y ago

Show me an event that is conclusively psychogenic. At this point I feel like a psychogenic diagnosis is like attributing something to god/religion. When you say what the cause of something is the burden of proof is now on you to provide evidence of that.