3 ms·
The 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-
by MattGaiser 3y ago
The 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.