6 ms·

I'm really tired of the fear mongering over this. There's been no proof presented to the public that this isn't just some mass psychosis phenomenon. I bet it's

I'm really tired of the fear mongering over this. There's been no proof presented to the public that this isn't just some mass psychosis phenomenon. I bet it's more related to stress than anything. CNN really wants the clicks/views though I guess.

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
There is proof, the people effected have physical damage as shown by radio imaging.
- decebalus1 4y ago
  Source for those statements? I've been following this since it appeared in the news cycles but I don't recall any evidence of physical damage. There were some inconclusive physical changes (keyword changes, not damage) but that doesn't really constitute as any form of proof that the condition is not psychosomatic.
  - freyr 4y ago
    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/25/politics/havana-syndrome-cia-doctor-cnn-special/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/25/politics/havana-syndrome-...
    - decebalus1 4y ago
      Not sure if you're comment is condescending or I've asked the wrong question. Probably a bit of both. I did read the article but I was asking more along the lines of actual evidence. This being a new and highly publicized phenomenon, I'd expect this to be a goldmine for research clinicians so I'd expect quite a lot of chatter in the form of articles or case studies.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
    I'm not exactly an expert at this so maybe this got debunked somehow but I've seen consistent reporting on MRI showing brain damage. Here's a mention of it in this article. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-blood-and-bureaucracy-inside-canadas-panicked-response-to-havana/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-blood-and-bure... Another report, or is it the same one as referenced above? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168
    - decebalus1 4y ago
      thanks!
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      These are both the same report, and it is not conclusive (which the authors agree on). There are many issues with the report, but one is that as it wasn't pre-registered and due to its exploratory nature, it's highly sensitive to accidental p-hacking. Until a completely new sample of victims with no relation is taken and the study replicated against a completely new control group with no relation, it has very little value. And even if it did, it still wouldn't be conclusive - psychosomatic illness can have physiological effects. The only way is to prove the mechanism of the attack - which for microwave attacks is readily done with wearable RF devices - and to find a physiologically plausible mechanism for that exact observed attack. Which should be pretty easy to do, and which the CIA hasn't done.
      - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
        > Which should be pretty easy to do, and which the CIA hasn't done. Would make sense if it was an own equipment malfunction.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  All kinds of mental disorders have associated changes in imaging. The real question is how would such a weapon be able to harm people at a distance without being detected? If you look at something like transcranial magnetic stimulation, it doesn't seem like the kind of brain tweaking that you could do without someone noticing. Anything energy-based (electromagnetic or sound) strong enough to affect the brain should be quite detectable. I suppose there could be chemical ways of doing it but I would think they could be detected as well. I also remember an interview with one of those suffering from Havana Syndrome who talked about how tough his job was and how he could stand up to nearly any pressure so there's no way this could be a manifestation of anxiety. Which makes me think that it is anxiety in someone whose belief system doesn't allow them to admit (even to themselves) that it might be a possibility.
- diogenescynic 4y ago
  Even the CIA refutes that it’s a hostile power doing this: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cia-havana-syndrome-hostile-power-1287690/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cia-hava... Just because one doctor says it we have to believe them? Doctors are not at all infallible and are flawed like everyone else. I mean just a few years ago, doctors were heavily subscribing opiates. I’ll remain skeptical until actual evidence is presented.
  - effingwewt 4y ago
    I'd believe damn near anyone over the CIA. In fact I'd take anything they refute as proof of existence.
    - diogenescynic 4y ago
      Then why are you believing a CIA doctor?
      - effingwewt 4y ago
        I love when someone pushes a bullshit narrative so hard they shoot themselves in the foot. To answer your 'question'- because he is actively going against the CIA narrative. Since you obviously didn't read the article let me enlighten you with a quote from it '"The narrative just was going the wrong way. And no matter what I did or said to people, that just continued," Andrews said. "In fact, to this day, a lot of things that were done seemed not appropriate to my standards." Some officers who were impacted didn't want to report for fear of damaging their careers, Andrews said.' This shouldn't need to be said, but let me do so anyways to avoid you muddying the waters further: one doctor from the CIA going counter to his higher-ups' narrative is why I believe 'a CIA doctor'. One doctor blowing a whistle is not the same as the entire CIA. They sowed this distrust themselves, and your comments are far from helping their current PR push.
        diogenescynic 4y ago
        > I love when someone pushes a bullshit narrative so hard they shoot themselves in the foot Projecting much? You were the one saying don’t trust the CIA (except this CIA doctor). Definitely seems consistent.
- fhsm 4y ago
  What is “radio imaging” evidence ? The only imaging I saw in the subsequently linked case series was conventional structural MRI … that is to say the imaging cited is evidence of absence (granting other aspects of linked assessment demonstrated a symptom burden which could be attributed to CNS dysfunction). Modern imaging modalities are amazing. Look forward to having the radio imaging finding highlighted.

KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago

There is proof, the people effected have physical damage as shown by radio imaging.

decebalus1 4y ago
Source for those statements? I've been following this since it appeared in the news cycles but I don't recall any evidence of physical damage. There were some inconclusive physical changes (keyword changes, not damage) but that doesn't really constitute as any form of proof that the condition is not psychosomatic.
- freyr 4y ago
  https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/25/politics/havana-syndrome-cia-doctor-cnn-special/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/25/politics/havana-syndrome-...
  - decebalus1 4y ago
    Not sure if you're comment is condescending or I've asked the wrong question. Probably a bit of both. I did read the article but I was asking more along the lines of actual evidence. This being a new and highly publicized phenomenon, I'd expect this to be a goldmine for research clinicians so I'd expect quite a lot of chatter in the form of articles or case studies.
- KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
  I'm not exactly an expert at this so maybe this got debunked somehow but I've seen consistent reporting on MRI showing brain damage. Here's a mention of it in this article. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-blood-and-bureaucracy-inside-canadas-panicked-response-to-havana/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-blood-and-bure... Another report, or is it the same one as referenced above? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168
  - decebalus1 4y ago
    thanks!
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    These are both the same report, and it is not conclusive (which the authors agree on). There are many issues with the report, but one is that as it wasn't pre-registered and due to its exploratory nature, it's highly sensitive to accidental p-hacking. Until a completely new sample of victims with no relation is taken and the study replicated against a completely new control group with no relation, it has very little value. And even if it did, it still wouldn't be conclusive - psychosomatic illness can have physiological effects. The only way is to prove the mechanism of the attack - which for microwave attacks is readily done with wearable RF devices - and to find a physiologically plausible mechanism for that exact observed attack. Which should be pretty easy to do, and which the CIA hasn't done.
    - KaoruAoiShiho 4y ago
      > Which should be pretty easy to do, and which the CIA hasn't done. Would make sense if it was an own equipment malfunction.
hotpotamus 4y ago
All kinds of mental disorders have associated changes in imaging. The real question is how would such a weapon be able to harm people at a distance without being detected? If you look at something like transcranial magnetic stimulation, it doesn't seem like the kind of brain tweaking that you could do without someone noticing. Anything energy-based (electromagnetic or sound) strong enough to affect the brain should be quite detectable. I suppose there could be chemical ways of doing it but I would think they could be detected as well. I also remember an interview with one of those suffering from Havana Syndrome who talked about how tough his job was and how he could stand up to nearly any pressure so there's no way this could be a manifestation of anxiety. Which makes me think that it is anxiety in someone whose belief system doesn't allow them to admit (even to themselves) that it might be a possibility.
diogenescynic 4y ago
Even the CIA refutes that it’s a hostile power doing this: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cia-havana-syndrome-hostile-power-1287690/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cia-hava... Just because one doctor says it we have to believe them? Doctors are not at all infallible and are flawed like everyone else. I mean just a few years ago, doctors were heavily subscribing opiates. I’ll remain skeptical until actual evidence is presented.
- effingwewt 4y ago
  I'd believe damn near anyone over the CIA. In fact I'd take anything they refute as proof of existence.
  - diogenescynic 4y ago
    Then why are you believing a CIA doctor?
    - effingwewt 4y ago
      I love when someone pushes a bullshit narrative so hard they shoot themselves in the foot. To answer your 'question'- because he is actively going against the CIA narrative. Since you obviously didn't read the article let me enlighten you with a quote from it '"The narrative just was going the wrong way. And no matter what I did or said to people, that just continued," Andrews said. "In fact, to this day, a lot of things that were done seemed not appropriate to my standards." Some officers who were impacted didn't want to report for fear of damaging their careers, Andrews said.' This shouldn't need to be said, but let me do so anyways to avoid you muddying the waters further: one doctor from the CIA going counter to his higher-ups' narrative is why I believe 'a CIA doctor'. One doctor blowing a whistle is not the same as the entire CIA. They sowed this distrust themselves, and your comments are far from helping their current PR push.
      - diogenescynic 4y ago
        > I love when someone pushes a bullshit narrative so hard they shoot themselves in the foot Projecting much? You were the one saying don’t trust the CIA (except this CIA doctor). Definitely seems consistent.
fhsm 4y ago
What is “radio imaging” evidence ? The only imaging I saw in the subsequently linked case series was conventional structural MRI … that is to say the imaging cited is evidence of absence (granting other aspects of linked assessment demonstrated a symptom burden which could be attributed to CNS dysfunction). Modern imaging modalities are amazing. Look forward to having the radio imaging finding highlighted.