pull down to refresh

Havana Syndrome was not a sonic weapon - analysis and discussion
2238 sats \ 1 comment \ @Kathleen_Croteau 7 Jan 2024 earth
In my review of the 2023 article by (Bartholomew and Baloh) (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00207640231212865#bibr1-00207640231212865), I've come to understand their conclusion that the 'Havana Syndrome' isn't the result of a secret energy weapon aimed at US embassy staff. Instead, they argue it's a psychological stress response due to flawed science, sensational media, and governmental interference in scientific affairs. Their well-articulated argument echoes the findings of earlier investigations by Cuban authorities and the FBI starting in 2016, which also dismissed the notion of sonic weapons causing brain injuries to US embassy personnel in Havana. Despite these consistent findings, confusion and fear around this issue have persisted for years.
I see the continued belief in the Havana Syndrome as stemming from a loss of trust in once-reliable authorities and institutions. It's puzzling how various respected entities like journalism, scientific publication, medicine, and government collectively failed in their primary roles. A significant aspect of this debacle was the US embassy in Havana's questionable decision to send health-concerned personnel to a Miami ear, nose, and throat doctor with a dubious background. This choice, along with the concurrence of other doctors and scientists on the diagnosis of traumatic brain injuries from a non-existent weapon, significantly fueled the syndrome's perpetuation.
I've noticed a troubling silence among many scientists, medical professionals, and government officials, who either chose not to engage with the controversy or were restricted from public discourse. This reluctance often stemmed from concerns over professional reputation and the repercussions of opposing their peers. Additionally, the dependency on government funding in scientific research created a conflict of interest that hindered open dissent.
The syndrome's escalation to an international scandal led to extreme measures, including the temporary closure of the embassy. The sensational media coverage exacerbated the public's fear and confusion. From my perspective, this situation underscores the failure of responsible journalism and scientific publication standards. The transition from subscription-based to open-access journals in scientific publishing appears to have compromised the rigor of the publication process, facilitating the dissemination of misinformation.
Finally, I believe it's crucial to confront and rectify the credibility crisis in scientific and government institutions. This involves reassessing practices in scientific publication, media reporting, and institutional transparency. The Havana Syndrome saga, in my view, is a cautionary tale about the perils of misinformation and the importance of maintaining trust in authoritative sources. It raises critical questions about our ability to learn from such incidents and to implement measures that prevent their recurrence.
write
preview
related posts
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kathleen_Croteau OP 7 Jan 2024
On March 1, 2023, five separate U.S. intelligence agencies revealed the findings of their investigation into the "Havana Syndrome," a mysterious condition that started affecting American and Canadian Embassy staff in Cuba in 2016 and later spread globally. They deemed it "highly unlikely" to be caused by a sonic or microwave device, or to involve a foreign adversary. Instead, they concluded that the syndrome was a socially constructed category, encompassing various pre-existing health conditions, environmental responses, and stress reactions, all mistakenly grouped together.
Reflecting on this, I note several factors leading to this erroneous classification. Multiple studies drew unwarranted conclusions from their data. For instance, some pointed to brain injuries without head trauma or found "brain anomalies" on functional MRI scans, which often represent normal variation. Additionally, studies suggesting damage to the inner ear's otolith organs or neurotoxin exposure from pesticides lacked credibility due to methodological flaws.
Media leaks played a significant role, such as reports on a study suggesting brain damage which turned out to be within normal variation. Moreover, popular misconceptions about mass psychogenic illness (MPI) influenced the narrative. For example, a U.S. Government panel's reluctance to consider MPI as a cause led to its head's resignation. Political and scientific discourse, fueled by statements from politicians and psychiatrists, often dismissed MPI as a possibility, misunderstanding it as a condition affecting only the weak-minded.
Another key aspect was the role of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Their report couldn't exclude microwave radiation as a cause and failed to assess MPI's role due to insufficient data. Additionally, the withholding of information by the U.S. Government, like the FBI's conclusion favoring MPI, contributed to the confusion. Classified reports, released later, found the role of microwave radiation "highly unlikely" and pointed to psychogenic illness.
In reviewing the history of the Havana Syndrome, I connect it with two longstanding moral panics: the fear of foreign threats and health concerns linked to new technologies. The U.S. Congress's decision to compensate "Havana Syndrome" victims recalls past actions where compensation was granted for dubious conditions.
Reflecting on Bartholomew and Baloh's 2023 review, they argue that the Havana Syndrome isn't a result of a secret energy weapon but a psychological stress response. This aligns with the intelligence agencies' findings and echoes earlier investigations dismissing the notion of sonic weapons. Despite these findings, the confusion persists due to a loss of trust in authorities and institutions.
I see the misdiagnosis beginning with the US embassy's decision to consult a controversial Miami doctor. This, coupled with other professionals agreeing on a non-existent weapon causing brain injuries, perpetuated the syndrome. The silence of many in the scientific and medical community, partly due to professional reputation concerns and conflicts of interest from government funding, further complicated the situation.
The syndrome's escalation to an international scandal led to extreme measures like the embassy's temporary closure. The sensational media coverage exacerbated public fear and confusion, highlighting failures in responsible journalism and scientific publication standards. The transition to open-access scientific journals seems to have compromised publication rigor, facilitating misinformation spread.
Confronting and rectifying the credibility crisis in scientific and government institutions is crucial. The Havana Syndrome saga is a cautionary tale about misinformation's perils and the importance of maintaining trust in authoritative sources. It raises critical questions about our ability to learn from such incidents and to implement measures that prevent their recurrence.
reply