5 ms·

This was the leading hypothesis for years, including for me, but even about a year ago I was considering betting a lot of money on a prediction market that it's

This was the leading hypothesis for years, including for me, but even about a year ago I was considering betting a lot of money on a prediction market that it's indeed an intentional deployment of a weapon. I've found myself arguing the case with people on HN on several occasions, in part because I'm extremely conspiracy theory-skeptical in general and felt like people were wrong to dismiss this as any other silly conspiracy theory circulating around. One factor worth noting is the consistency of the self-reports of the phenomenon and the symptoms, subsequent brain scans showing concussive injury, and medical diagnoses of brain damage. At this point I'd definitely bet if I could find a way to. I'd say I'm about 85% confident it's a weapon. And unless there's an elaborate false flag or psyop going on, then if the claims in this article are true, it seems Russian intelligence officers are likely the ones responsible for at least some of the attacks: https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-microwave-attacks https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-micro... (Oct 2020).

jessaustin 5y ago
Claiming it's an intentionally-designed, secretly-deployed weapon seems like more of a "conspiracy theory" than that it's a result of delegating facilities construction and maintenance to private corporations with security clearances. How welcome are "Russian intelligence officers" in Guangzhou?
- meowface 5y ago
  It certainly is, yes. I'm basing this in part on the claims in the GQ article. My point was that I view any kind of conspiracy allegation with a huge grain of salt, so when I think there actually likely is one, I feel outspoken about it. If the claims in the GQ article are true, then I think Russian intelligence officers are likely responsible for at least some of the attacks in some of the locations. For example, in Russia. If the claims are false, I'd still lean towards an attack but with an indeterminate perpetrator. The probability of a deliberate attack seems pretty high, to me, even if the exact nature and culprits are still mysterious. How welcome are they? Possibly very welcome, possibly not welcome; who knows. There could be a lot of branching possibilities, here, including perhaps the ability to place remotely-controlled devices in or near embassies so they don't need to be physically nearby to conduct an attack. Or they could've received approval from some governments (though that seems quite unlikely, except maybe for Cuba). Or there could be multiple groups involved. Or it could be done at such a long distance that they felt comfortable violating countries' sovereignty with plausible deniability (though that seems fairly improbable and brazen even for them, even if I think it's plausible). There are also some allegations of attacks around the DC area. I'm sure at least some of the reports may be psychogenic, and the DC ones seem the most likely to fall into that category. But if those actually turn out to be real, then that'd be good evidence of how brazen the attackers are.
KingOfCoders 5y ago
"consistency of the self-reports" (Not that I say it isn't a weapon, I have no clue) This happens in embassies, where people are a closed community and people move from one embassy to another. And they talk about their symptoms all the time I would assume, at work, in private and on parties and events because it is a life defining thing. Everyone is scared. So for sure the self-reports would be consistent, wouldn't they? The argument would be stronger if this happend in embassies and in military outposts at the same time, where the personal do not mix and meet.
- meowface 5y ago
  Very true. It's the combination of that plus the seeming consistency in some of the medical findings that I find pretty compelling. If it were merely reports of phenomena without any kind of medical abnormalities discovered, I'd definitely assume it was psychogenic in nature.
bjourne 5y ago
There is no evidence showing that any US diplomat suffered any brain injury. The Princeton study, which is the only one on the matter, claimed to have found "brain abnormalities" but couldn't determine whether those abnormalities were preexisting conditions or not. Study: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2019/july/advanced-neuroimaging-brain-matter-alterations-gov-personnel-developed-neurological-symptoms-cuba https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2019/july/ad... The study has been criticized and essentially called bunk. Read the critique here: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/bad-science-of-the-havana-embassy-sonic-attack https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/bad-science-of-the-hav...
- meowface 5y ago
  Interesting; thank you for the resources. JAMA conducted a study in 2018 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168) and another in 2019 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2738552 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2738552). The critique you linked addresses only the 2018 study. It does appear the conclusion of the 2019 study isn't very definitive, though: >Neuroimaging findings differed between controls and US government personnel who experienced neurological signs and symptoms after potential directional phenomena exposure in Havana, Cuba, although the clinical relevance of these differences is uncertain and may require further study. The WSJ article published today states the following: >One patient who recently transferred from a posting in a European capital to be treated at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland said doctors there had diagnosed a brain injury of the type seen in people exposed to shock waves from explosions. >This person told the Journal the symptoms were preceded by piercing ear pain, high-pitched electronic noise and pressure in the ears. These occurred while the person was at home at night or early in the morning in March. >The patient initially believed the symptoms were related to a Covid-19 vaccine received earlier. After the condition persisted, the embassy flew the worker back to Washington, embassy officials said. I don't think WSJ is reporting on a patient who was previously included in one of these 2018/2019 analyses, because they claim the patient initially believed the symptoms were related to a COVID-19 vaccine. It also appears to be hearsay from the patient, but according to WSJ in the citation above, the patient claims that doctors did specifically diagnose him with a brain injury. There's also this October 2020 GQ story, which speaks to someone else who reports a similar claim: https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-microwave-attacks https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-micro... It appears this patient wasn't included in the 2018 JAMA study. However, he did read the 2018 JAMA study and went to the same lab that was part of the study, so if you assume the lab is using faulty methodology, then that would cast additional doubt. It's unclear if he was part of the 2019 one. The critique you posted states: >The thrust of the criticism is a very simple one: most of the ‘cognitive dysfunction’ reported in the JAMA study wasn’t actually dysfunction. Della Sala and Cubelli argue that Swanson et al. relied on a very broad definition of ‘impairment’ that would generate many false positives. The GQ article states: >They evaluated 21 of the Havana victims and found the kind of damage to cognitive, balance, motor, and sensory functions associated with a severe concussion. Unlike with most concussions, however, these symptoms did not quickly dissipate. Instead, they lasted for months, waxing and waning over time. Which would be invalid if the critique is justified. (I assume they're just summarizing the findings of the study.) It also states: >In the spring of 2018, a private neurologist gave Polymeropoulos a diagnosis: occipital neuralgia, a condition resulting from damage to the two nerves that run from the base of the skull, curving toward the front of the head. So there's additionally the diagnosis from that neurologist. There's a lot to sift through, here. At the very least, there's: - The credibility of the 2018 JAMA study and the validity of that critique - The credibility of the 2019 JAMA study and what critiques there could be of that - This credibility of the specific first-hand account from Polymeropoulos and the diagnosis from a private neurologist - The credibility of the testimonies from others in the GQ article - The credibility of the patient and their doctor in this new article from WSJ I'm definitely not qualified to assess those JAMA studies or the critique of the 2018 one. My confidence in the deliberate attack hypothesis is lower, now, but I still think it's more likely than not for the time being, pending additional commentary I can find on the studies and the critique. I'll post this around some places online that I know have a bunch of medical experts and see what they think of all this.

jessaustin 5y ago

Claiming it's an intentionally-designed, secretly-deployed weapon seems like more of a "conspiracy theory" than that it's a result of delegating facilities construction and maintenance to private corporations with security clearances. How welcome are "Russian intelligence officers" in Guangzhou?

meowface 5y ago
It certainly is, yes. I'm basing this in part on the claims in the GQ article. My point was that I view any kind of conspiracy allegation with a huge grain of salt, so when I think there actually likely is one, I feel outspoken about it. If the claims in the GQ article are true, then I think Russian intelligence officers are likely responsible for at least some of the attacks in some of the locations. For example, in Russia. If the claims are false, I'd still lean towards an attack but with an indeterminate perpetrator. The probability of a deliberate attack seems pretty high, to me, even if the exact nature and culprits are still mysterious. How welcome are they? Possibly very welcome, possibly not welcome; who knows. There could be a lot of branching possibilities, here, including perhaps the ability to place remotely-controlled devices in or near embassies so they don't need to be physically nearby to conduct an attack. Or they could've received approval from some governments (though that seems quite unlikely, except maybe for Cuba). Or there could be multiple groups involved. Or it could be done at such a long distance that they felt comfortable violating countries' sovereignty with plausible deniability (though that seems fairly improbable and brazen even for them, even if I think it's plausible). There are also some allegations of attacks around the DC area. I'm sure at least some of the reports may be psychogenic, and the DC ones seem the most likely to fall into that category. But if those actually turn out to be real, then that'd be good evidence of how brazen the attackers are.

KingOfCoders 5y ago

"consistency of the self-reports" (Not that I say it isn't a weapon, I have no clue) This happens in embassies, where people are a closed community and people move from one embassy to another. And they talk about their symptoms all the time I would assume, at work, in private and on parties and events because it is a life defining thing. Everyone is scared. So for sure the self-reports would be consistent, wouldn't they? The argument would be stronger if this happend in embassies and in military outposts at the same time, where the personal do not mix and meet.

meowface 5y ago
Very true. It's the combination of that plus the seeming consistency in some of the medical findings that I find pretty compelling. If it were merely reports of phenomena without any kind of medical abnormalities discovered, I'd definitely assume it was psychogenic in nature.

bjourne 5y ago

There is no evidence showing that any US diplomat suffered any brain injury. The Princeton study, which is the only one on the matter, claimed to have found "brain abnormalities" but couldn't determine whether those abnormalities were preexisting conditions or not. Study: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2019/july/advanced-neuroimaging-brain-matter-alterations-gov-personnel-developed-neurological-symptoms-cuba https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2019/july/ad... The study has been criticized and essentially called bunk. Read the critique here: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/bad-science-of-the-havana-embassy-sonic-attack https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/bad-science-of-the-hav...

meowface 5y ago
Interesting; thank you for the resources. JAMA conducted a study in 2018 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168) and another in 2019 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2738552 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2738552). The critique you linked addresses only the 2018 study. It does appear the conclusion of the 2019 study isn't very definitive, though: >Neuroimaging findings differed between controls and US government personnel who experienced neurological signs and symptoms after potential directional phenomena exposure in Havana, Cuba, although the clinical relevance of these differences is uncertain and may require further study. The WSJ article published today states the following: >One patient who recently transferred from a posting in a European capital to be treated at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland said doctors there had diagnosed a brain injury of the type seen in people exposed to shock waves from explosions. >This person told the Journal the symptoms were preceded by piercing ear pain, high-pitched electronic noise and pressure in the ears. These occurred while the person was at home at night or early in the morning in March. >The patient initially believed the symptoms were related to a Covid-19 vaccine received earlier. After the condition persisted, the embassy flew the worker back to Washington, embassy officials said. I don't think WSJ is reporting on a patient who was previously included in one of these 2018/2019 analyses, because they claim the patient initially believed the symptoms were related to a COVID-19 vaccine. It also appears to be hearsay from the patient, but according to WSJ in the citation above, the patient claims that doctors did specifically diagnose him with a brain injury. There's also this October 2020 GQ story, which speaks to someone else who reports a similar claim: https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-microwave-attacks https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-micro... It appears this patient wasn't included in the 2018 JAMA study. However, he did read the 2018 JAMA study and went to the same lab that was part of the study, so if you assume the lab is using faulty methodology, then that would cast additional doubt. It's unclear if he was part of the 2019 one. The critique you posted states: >The thrust of the criticism is a very simple one: most of the ‘cognitive dysfunction’ reported in the JAMA study wasn’t actually dysfunction. Della Sala and Cubelli argue that Swanson et al. relied on a very broad definition of ‘impairment’ that would generate many false positives. The GQ article states: >They evaluated 21 of the Havana victims and found the kind of damage to cognitive, balance, motor, and sensory functions associated with a severe concussion. Unlike with most concussions, however, these symptoms did not quickly dissipate. Instead, they lasted for months, waxing and waning over time. Which would be invalid if the critique is justified. (I assume they're just summarizing the findings of the study.) It also states: >In the spring of 2018, a private neurologist gave Polymeropoulos a diagnosis: occipital neuralgia, a condition resulting from damage to the two nerves that run from the base of the skull, curving toward the front of the head. So there's additionally the diagnosis from that neurologist. There's a lot to sift through, here. At the very least, there's: - The credibility of the 2018 JAMA study and the validity of that critique - The credibility of the 2019 JAMA study and what critiques there could be of that - This credibility of the specific first-hand account from Polymeropoulos and the diagnosis from a private neurologist - The credibility of the testimonies from others in the GQ article - The credibility of the patient and their doctor in this new article from WSJ I'm definitely not qualified to assess those JAMA studies or the critique of the 2018 one. My confidence in the deliberate attack hypothesis is lower, now, but I still think it's more likely than not for the time being, pending additional commentary I can find on the studies and the critique. I'll post this around some places online that I know have a bunch of medical experts and see what they think of all this.