3 ms·

I agree there's no verifiable evidence of the existence of such a deployed weapon or any other method of causing harm. The fact that cases keep being reported

I agree there's no verifiable evidence of the existence of such a deployed weapon or any other method of causing harm. The fact that cases keep being reported outside of Cuba is interesting, though. Crickets can't explain the noises heard elsewhere. Also, importantly, some of the affected diplomats in Cuba didn't report hearing a sound and only reported the other symptoms. The crickets' presence in/near some of their rooms could have just been a confounder (weird onset of symptoms; weird onset of noise; must be connected). So the case for the existence of the "syndrome" probably doesn't hinge on perception of a sound. If everyone reported a sound, then I agree the cricket thing would make it seem more likely to be psychogenic. Those studies potentially being dubious would be the strongest evidence against use of something like a microwave weapon. However, we do know the Russians did develop microwave weapons which can be deployed against individuals, so even though evidence is lacking for their use, it's not a totally far-fetched theory given we know such weapons probably exist. Also, since those studies are a big part of this story, their being discredited would certainly deflate a lot of this, but I don't know if there's any kind of consensus around it. There are many political incentives to support or to critique the findings, and while the critiques may be very valid, I'm not at all qualified to judge that. Another more "mundane" explanation here besides mass psychogenic illness could simply be a campaign of poisoning diplomats through their food or drinks. The poison could be something that breaks down quickly or otherwise is not easily detectable, and could potentially have lasting neurological effects. I know anecdotes don't mean much, but the story reported in the WSJ yesterday and Polymeropoulos's story in GQ make me think something serious and real did happen to those two individuals, whether or not it's due to an attack or related to what other people were reporting.

bjourne 5y ago
I think you are putting way to much stock in what the media writes. Remember that last year the WSJ uncritically ran a story about how Russians were paying the Taliban to kill American troops. The story turned out to be false. And prior to that the paper claimed that that the Russians were aiding Bernie Sander's presidential campaign because they thought he would lose to Donald Trump. I urge you to read the book which you can find online. It is written by a medical sociologist and a neurologist and is a bit more reliable than the mainstream press.
- meowface 5y ago
  True, very good point. My confidence in the claims have definitely decreased. However, I do think there is a slight distinction between these things. One is a controversial claim of fact that you basically have to take their word for ("secret operation by foreign adversary") and the others are ultimately subjective anecdotes from real individuals ("I'm suffering from something and it's affecting my life"). Even if one thinks the suffering may be psychogenic or just caused by something completely unrelated, the suffering is likely real; I find it doubtful the media or the sufferers are just completely fabricating their subjective experiences. I am distrustful of the media and distrustful of anecdotes, but in this case I trust at least that part of the story, even if it ends up basically amounting to some sort of nocebo effect from people who may have already had some unrelated neurological issues or who may be experiencing a purely psychogenic phenomenon. There's additionally the WSJ article subject's claimed diagnosis from a neurologist, which could be just as faulty as the JAMA studies if those are indeed faulty, or could be real but could have a cause unrelated to any kind of embassy attack. But I think that, at the least, it increases the chance that the patient is experiencing something that's negatively affecting their quality of life and functioning, whatever it might be. I'll do some more research and probably post this in another place that I know has experts on topics like these.

bjourne 5y ago

I think you are putting way to much stock in what the media writes. Remember that last year the WSJ uncritically ran a story about how Russians were paying the Taliban to kill American troops. The story turned out to be false. And prior to that the paper claimed that that the Russians were aiding Bernie Sander's presidential campaign because they thought he would lose to Donald Trump. I urge you to read the book which you can find online. It is written by a medical sociologist and a neurologist and is a bit more reliable than the mainstream press.

meowface 5y ago
True, very good point. My confidence in the claims have definitely decreased. However, I do think there is a slight distinction between these things. One is a controversial claim of fact that you basically have to take their word for ("secret operation by foreign adversary") and the others are ultimately subjective anecdotes from real individuals ("I'm suffering from something and it's affecting my life"). Even if one thinks the suffering may be psychogenic or just caused by something completely unrelated, the suffering is likely real; I find it doubtful the media or the sufferers are just completely fabricating their subjective experiences. I am distrustful of the media and distrustful of anecdotes, but in this case I trust at least that part of the story, even if it ends up basically amounting to some sort of nocebo effect from people who may have already had some unrelated neurological issues or who may be experiencing a purely psychogenic phenomenon. There's additionally the WSJ article subject's claimed diagnosis from a neurologist, which could be just as faulty as the JAMA studies if those are indeed faulty, or could be real but could have a cause unrelated to any kind of embassy attack. But I think that, at the least, it increases the chance that the patient is experiencing something that's negatively affecting their quality of life and functioning, whatever it might be. I'll do some more research and probably post this in another place that I know has experts on topics like these.