2 ms·

I'd recommend reading the study. You're making some false claims. In particular quoting the study: --- While the U.S. Government allowed the release of the [p

I'd recommend reading the study. You're making some false claims. In particular quoting the study: --- While the U.S. Government allowed the release of the [politicized findings which suggested weapons as a possible cause], they withheld the results of other investigations that were skeptical of the condition. In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that mass psychogenic illness was most likely responsible for the outbreak. While the report remains classified, its conclusions were leaked to the media. The contents of a second classified report were only released in September 2021 after a Freedom of Information Act filing. It found the role of microwave radiation “highly unlikely,” and that psychogenic illness appeared to play a role --- The political establishment was actively trying to suggest it was caused by secret weapons from "foreign adversaries", and classifying the opinions which contradicted that. They were undermined by a mixture of leaks and Freedom of Information Act requests. People claiming to suffer from the syndrome numbered in the hundreds in 70 countries around the world [1], including many Western nations where "foreign adversaries" would stand minimal chance of deploying any sort of a weapon, even more so after the initial incidents. Notably, from the same article, workers who reported suffering from 'Havana Syndrome' were able to receive compensation of up to $200,000. [1] - https://apnews.com/article/health-cuba-havana-congress-e0186a3be21ff83e7985f7d0fd5423ed https://apnews.com/article/health-cuba-havana-congress-e0186...

josefresco 2y ago
> Notably, from the same article, workers who reported suffering from 'Havana Syndrome' were able to receive compensation of up to $200,000. Are you suggesting these people reported symptoms in order to be eligible for potential future government compensation? Compensation I remind you, that didn't even exist until very recently. Oh and I couldn't resist: "Specific amounts will be determined to by the extent and severity of the victims’ injuries, which have included brain damage not limited to vertigo, cognitive damage, eyesight and hearing problems, according to the officials and aides." That's some "psychogenic illness"! And why would they compensate at all if this is just made up?
- somenameforme 2y ago
  The study got into the "injuries" in detail. Quoting it, once again: --- One found that patients “appeared to have sustained injury to widespread brain networks without an associated history of head trauma” (Swanson et al., 2018, p. 1125). But standard MRI scans of the brain were normal and based on the criteria for abnormal neuropsychological tests, just about anybody would be diagnosed with brain injury as the threshold for impairment was excessively high (Della Sala & Cubelli, 2018). Another study using functional MRI found “brain anomalies” in a small cohort of patients (Ragini et al., 2019). But such anomalies are common with this imagining technique, often representing normal individual variation. -- And I'm stopping the quote there for brevity. It goes on with further elaboration.

josefresco 2y ago

> Notably, from the same article, workers who reported suffering from 'Havana Syndrome' were able to receive compensation of up to $200,000. Are you suggesting these people reported symptoms in order to be eligible for potential future government compensation? Compensation I remind you, that didn't even exist until very recently. Oh and I couldn't resist: "Specific amounts will be determined to by the extent and severity of the victims’ injuries, which have included brain damage not limited to vertigo, cognitive damage, eyesight and hearing problems, according to the officials and aides." That's some "psychogenic illness"! And why would they compensate at all if this is just made up?

somenameforme 2y ago
The study got into the "injuries" in detail. Quoting it, once again: --- One found that patients “appeared to have sustained injury to widespread brain networks without an associated history of head trauma” (Swanson et al., 2018, p. 1125). But standard MRI scans of the brain were normal and based on the criteria for abnormal neuropsychological tests, just about anybody would be diagnosed with brain injury as the threshold for impairment was excessively high (Della Sala & Cubelli, 2018). Another study using functional MRI found “brain anomalies” in a small cohort of patients (Ragini et al., 2019). But such anomalies are common with this imagining technique, often representing normal individual variation. -- And I'm stopping the quote there for brevity. It goes on with further elaboration.