4 ms·
This article mentions multiple people with traumatic brain injuries, backed up by neurosurgeons. That isn't psychogenic, that's is pretty physical. The article
by tedivm 3y ago
This article mentions multiple people with traumatic brain injuries, backed up by neurosurgeons. That isn't psychogenic, that's is pretty physical. The article even addresses that.
> There is a reason why the Havana Act only came into force in 2021: for the past eight years, Havana Syndrome has been the subject of intense controversy. Sociologists have suggested it is little more than a mass psychogenic illness, or perhaps the outbreak of mass hysteria. Such arguments have been undercut by multiple medical studies, including one conducted by an expert panel convened by the U.S. intelligence community. The final assessment of that investigation found that AHIs had “a unique combination of core characteristics that cannot be explained by known environmental or medical conditions and could be due to external stimuli.”
- MattGaiser 3y agoThe traumatic brain injuries part is disputed. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/havana-syndrome-nih-study-1.7147124 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/havana-syndrome-nih-study-1.71... US intelligence community says they are there, the NIH does not seem to agree. The NIH doesn't dispute a possible weapon, just that there is visible brain damage.
- refulgentis 3y agoI know nothing, at all, and am probably trivially wrong. But their symptoms remind me vaguely of concussions in the NFL, and my understanding is, there is no way to find out if someone has CTE until after they're dead. So I find it somewhat distasteful that the NIH brain scans were/are cited as a proof one way or the other. I'm probably completely wrong on a possible hidden injury, and the "cited as proof" I'm complaining about is almost certainly that it was dryly included in a report, that they tried some scans, that didn't have any positive results: and that, of course, is the right tone and absolutely should be included in the report.
- lostlogin 3y ago> So I find it somewhat distasteful that the NIH brain scans were/are cited as a proof one way or the other. What the scans were matters too. Eg an MRI brain might be ‘normal’, but would a scan targeting the inner ear? A report from an MR looking for evidence of Meniere’s would be interesting.