Talk:Havana syndrome

Attribution

Note that much of the text on this article was copied from existing text at Embassy of the United States, Havana. Ethanbas ^(talk) 10:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

More sources

Found these new sources. Anyone want to add them?

• https://gizmodo.com/study-malfunctioning-surveillance-gear-not-sonic-weap-1823488256
• https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/us-embassy-cuba-staff-reductions-attacks/index.html

RobP (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. I did it. RobP (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There has been a new update on November 20th 2018. The mother of one of the diplomats in China has spoken out about her expereince being targeted by what she considers to be weaponry. I have cited the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGosar (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Requested move 7 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed title gathered no support, and no alternatives gathered much support either. Editors are welcome to open a new request if a more accurate title is available. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Embassy attack accusations in Cuba → Suspected health attacks on American diplomats – I'm listing this at WP:RM not because I think it would be controversial, but because I'm hoping the people it draws might have some ideas. There has been media attention about reports of the same types of symptoms reported by diplomats in China. There's no reason for a separate article, but this name should be changed, as the attacks in China are getting equal attention to the attacks in Cuba. I don't know what the best name would be. I've added one suggestion, but I think there are probably alternatives that would be as good or better. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh PLEASE do not change the name to that. The phrase "health attacks" is ungrammatical. Also, Canadian diplomats in Cuba also claimed to be attacked, so the current name captures that as well. I see no problem with the current name. RobP (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the current name is that it excludes the reported attacks in China. Natureium (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well it wasn't about China. And I do not think that new section belongs in this article. If it stays then the article needs to be redone to include the China material in other sections also, including the lead. Perhaps a more generic "attack" article could be created out of this, but it does not seem to be there yet. Anyway, would you say "health attacks on school children" to describe a school shooting? That particular phrase is awful English. RobP (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So far, the Cuba incident has had a lot more press coverage than the China incident. Though the latter is newer, and that could change. It's also quite possible we could see this in more locations (edit: update: Uzbekistan incident).--Pharos (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I know it wasn't about China. Now it is. That's why the name is no longer appropriate. It would be inappropriate to create an entire new article on the attacks in China, when they are linked. You wouldn't create an article on shootings and call it a health attack because it is clear that the injuries are caused by gunshots. No peer-reviewed research necessary. There is no identified cause of these reported attacks, so there isn't a clearer term. Natureium (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It actually seems that the "attacks" are likely psychogenic. Imagined. So I do not see that there is a link between Cuba and the new accusations. But if the scope of this article MUST be widened to add any similar reported incident, "health attacks" is still a bad description. How about: American diplomat attack accusations RobP (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the incidents are psychogenic, that's a very real link to a spreading mass phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think there's no link between the conditions reported in China and Cuba? That's inconsistent with what media outlets are reporting. Natureium (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest Suspected embassy sonic attacks to match likely search terms, and to be geographically neutral.--Pharos (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I could live with that. RobP (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I like it in general, but I'm not sure that we should stay geographically neutral as it would suggest the article should encompass any such "sonic attacks" in the future. The article is currently specifically about US and CA staff, so how about Suspected embassy sonic attacks on American and Canadian staff, Suspected sonic attacks on US and Canadian embassies or Sonic attack accusations on embassies in Cuba and China (it can always be updated to "in multiple countries" if is becomes more widespread. Lochaber (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Sonic attacks" probably isn't the best name because it's been widely reported that there is no identified cause of the conditions. Calling it a sonic attack when it could well be something else is incorrect. Natureium (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If we are going universal, why limit it to embassies? Surely there are surveillance happening in hotels, restaurants, cars etc.. likewise if the problem is caused by over-powered equipment it's not an "attack" but accidental/incidental. Furthermore it's not always "sonic" in nature, such as the Soviet incident involving microwaves in the 1970s already mentioned in this article. Common themes include "espionage", "surveillance" and "casualties"/"injuries". A simple title would be surveillance injuries though it might be too ambiguous, surveillance induced injuries is more literal and to the point. It doesn't imply if they are intentional, where done or why. It leaves the article open to a history of such incidents. -- GreenC 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That would make the article about these type of possibly sonic attacks in general, rather than the specific incidents in 2016-2018 that the article is currently about. If that's what we want to make the article about, that's fine, but changing the title to that would mean a change to the article topic. Natureium (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the article would continue to be about those topics, but it would expand it so it could also include a history of all such notable incidents. Otherwise why would the 2016-18 incidents be specially notable versus other incidents? -- GreenC

• Can't solely mention Americans, as Canadians have been reliably reported as affected too;
• Can't confine the title to Cuba (or China) because diplomats in China (and Cuba) were affected;
• And, ultimately, we probably shouldn't even describe the phenomenon as an "attack" as there is speculation it may be accidental or otherwise not malicious.

So there you have it—make a title out of that!

But I agree the current title needs changing as events have over-taken it, and it is no longer descriptive of the article. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. If this MUST be about multiple locations, then so be it. I split the Reactions between Cuba and China. Lead has now been updated as well. Also created redirects for Sonic attack in China and Sonic attacks in China to drive such searches here. Problem: What to do when article discuss both locations (and more in the future?) equally in the same article? RobP (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop focusing on the location of the incidents and start focusing on the incidents themselves?

• Unspecified health attacks on American diplomats?
• Unusual illnesses reported by American diplomats?
• Neurological symptoms reported by American diplomats?
• Accusations of sonic attacks on American foreign service workers?
• Incidents that are possibly sonic attacks and possibly instances of mass hysteria by Americans purported to be diplomats but later revealed to be clandestine workers?

Just a few ideas. Natureium (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Surveillance induced injuries is more than sufficient to cover all such incidents, both current event and historical. Article titles are meant to be concise (short) as and have broad coverage. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper of current events. It is meant to be broad coverage of fundamental topics. -- GreenC 22:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That would work for the hypothesis that malfunctioning surveillance equipment caused the sounds, but that doesn't make sense if you believe it's an episode of mass hysteria. Natureium (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Still works. Mass hysteria is an injury, and if the hysterical people believe it was caused by Surveillance it is to blame. The radio broadcast War of the Worlds caused mass hysteria - do we blame the victims or Orson Wells? Both. Also this is not a theory many subscribe so it doesn't need a lot of emphasis. -- GreenC 14:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected Embassy Sonic Attacks? RobP (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The simplest thing to do is not to assume that the attacks are closely related, and split the information on China into a new article, either with a parallel title (Embassy attack accusations in China) or a different title based upon the circumstances there. This article could still reference the possibility of a connection to the Chinese case without assuming one. Dekimasuよ! 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would you assume they're unrelated? Natureium (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't assume they're unrelated, but in order for them to be covered together, the relation should be treated as confirmed by reliable sources. Otherwise you could ask the "why would you assume they're unrelated" question of any two articles on Wikipedia. I recognize that there is more information in the article that links the two than there was when this request was opened–the comments by Pompeo stating that the symptoms are alike. But this does not seem to rise to the level of linking the topics, just as we don't have the Ghouta chemical attack and the Tokyo subway sarin attack in the same article because they both involved sarin. Dekimasuよ! 18:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Mild oppose, I think the title instead needs to include "sonic" or "acoustic". There is little evidence but much conjecture that a sonic weapon is involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Actual Cause

It's called Copper Cysteamine ("CuCy" pronounced) (US Patent 9 593 131 B2) invented in the University of Texas at Arlington's Center for Security Advances Via Applied Nanotechnology (SAVANT Center). In solution, it's a photosensitizer that is responsive to microwave radiation, X-Ray radiation and ultrasound. When actuated by these forms of energy, CuCy undergoes an oxidation reaction that releases the Cu+1 supercation that in reacts with water to make singlet oxygen and other reactive oxygen species. If you conjugate it with the antibody Ri7, you can use it to destroy subcortical endothelial cells immunochemically. The reaction and rereaction of Copper and Cysteamine is used to perform necrotic loops which over time eat away at the endothelium of blood vessels in the brain. On paper, CuCy is supposed to be used medically to treat deep tumours in the CNS like glioblastomas but that's a lie. It's far too dangerous for medical use and nobody is seriously trying to commercialize it as a regulated cancer therapy.

Research in applying CuCy was funded by U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, the National Science Foundation and DHS's joint Academic Research Initiative program, the National Basic Research Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the five-year plan of the Chinese Military.

Cytotoxic nanotoxins are really nasty because even after treatment to remove them, the damage to the blood-brain barrier is permanent. Normal conditions like elevated bilirubin levels or moderately high blood pressure become encephalopathic. Mike Beck, the NSA employee poisoned in China, and claims to have developed Parkinson's disease in his 40s, has vascular dementia that could have contributed to his Parkinson's (assuming the dementia is properly caused by Parkinsonism).

This is an extraordinarily well kept secret because all the great powers and secondary powers know about nanowarfare. That includes traditional enemies like Iran. The human rights lawyer Mark Zaid wasn't lying when he said that this warfare goes on in secret all the time. I'm just shocked nobody has ever broken the silence to the general public.

The BS in the establishment press is literal FUD put out by the deep state. It's hilarious to see self-righteous, useful idiot journalists performing the role of modern day obscurantists and to be praised by the unthinking masses for it too. I'm not sure who benefits to keeping this a secret now that even a non-power like Cuba has reverse engineered a tool of silent, deniable, neurological assassination.

Any philosopher of information will tell you that security through obscurity is not security. I guess that doesn't apply to national security. -- 77.100.55.21 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

RS for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Update. This is still the most correct theory. -- 77.100.55.21 (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This isn't the correct forum to introduce the world to a new reality. VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

December 2020

An IP user added this NBC News piece to the article as a bare link [1]. It would qualify as a reliable source, so I'm moving it here. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It's now confirmed, Dec. 6, by multiple news outlets. US official experts unequivocally confirm the microwave source, leaving deliberate or accidental motivation undetermined (at this point). JohndanR (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not what https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/havana-syndrome-likely-caused-microwave-energy-government-study-finds-n1250094 says. It says that it's confirmed some have suffered health problems, that there is no firm conclusion, etc. The closest is "Overall, directed pulsed RF energy … appears to be the most plausible mechanism in explaining these cases among those that the committee considered". With: "But there was not — and is not now — conclusive intelligence pointing in that direction, multiple officials who have been briefed on the matter said", "officials consider that a promising lead but not conclusive evidence", "each possible cause remains speculative", "the report should not be viewed as conclusive", "The report says more investigation is required", "None has come forward with any conclusions, and the State Department has quietly ceased using the word 'attacks' to describe what happened". —PaleoNeonate – 10:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary/secondary

Which is better:

• The 2020 study by the U.S. National Academies was limited in its ability to assess the possibility that "mass psychological illness" was the cause of the phenomenon because it did not have data that would allow it to map social networks of those affected.

or

• The National Academies committee sought evidence "that psychological and social factors may have caused or contributed to symptoms reported by DOS [Department of State] personnel," including Bartholomew and Baloh's suggestion that mass psychogenic illness could be the cause of symptoms. The committee, however, wrote that "the likelihood of mass psychogenic illness as an explanation for patients' symptoms had to be established from sufficient evidence" and "could not be inferred merely by the absence of other causal mechanisms or the lack of definitive structural injuries." The committee concluded that, because it lacked patient-level psychological or psychiatric data, it "could not make a determination about the presence or absence of delusional disorder as a cause for the distinct acute symptoms in any affected persons," but that "delusional disorders could not explain the full range of symptoms reported by the entire group of patients." Noting that the "significant variability and clinical heterogeneity of the illnesses affecting DOS personnel leave open the possibility of multiple causal factors, over time and place, both for individual cases and for the population," the committee held that "psychological and social factors," like other mechanisms examined, could potentially "exacerbate other forms of pathology" and contribute to morbidity "in some of the cases, especially for individuals with chronic symptoms." The committee also concluded that the "acute initial, sudden-onset, distinct and unusual symptoms and signs described in some affected DOS personnel ... cannot be ascribed to psychological and social factors in the absence of patient-level data."

The first is from a secondary source. The second is taken from a number of pages within a primary source. Burrobert (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• For one thing, the first part is largely redundant to material already in the article, which already says the following about study limitations:

In December 2020, a study by an expert committee of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, commissioned by the State Department, released its report, concluding that "Overall, directed pulsed RF energy ... appears to be the most plausible mechanism in explaining these cases among those that the committee considered" but that "each possible cause remains speculative" and that "the report should not be viewed as conclusive" ... The panel stated that a lack of information (such as medical testing data about affected persons) limited what it could conclude about the plausible explanations for the phenomenon.

For another thing, I have serious WP:MEDRS concerns with equating a BuzzFeed article (the source of your first block) to a National Academies consensus report (the source for the second block). Neutrality^talk 18:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where the redundancy occurs. Not sure about the medical sourcing issue. Perhaps the noticeboard or the Medicine and Pharmacology projects would be a good place to ask. Burrobert (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The NAS, to the extent it was called in to review and comment on data from State Department doctors, isn't a primary source. I also think that that was a lot of undue weight opinion harvesting from thae BuzzFeed News article. Of course there's criticism out there, there are people who have been claiming that this is mass psychogenic illness from the beginning (I didn't know that the sounds of crickets could cause lifelong debilitating brain injury) but not every source gives as much attention to them, for example, this BBC report [2]. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Science Vs podcast

I added Professor Alan Carson's comment about the fallacy that psychogenic illnesses don't have physical symptoms. He's well credentialed and done relevant research. I couldn't quite figure out how to include the transcript so I'm providing it here. What's more, "Science V" do their research and have over a hundred citations on this episode. They are per WP:MEDRS a third party WP:SECONDARY source. Clearly the NAS report isn't, nor should it be treated as, the end of the discussion. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. Some shortcomings of the NAS report have been in and out of the article previously. Burrobert (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The National Academies of Science vs. a podcast that nobody's heard of. WP:UNDUE. Geogene (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The idea that the NAS somehow has such good credentials that it forever silences all other relevant experts is not a legitimate argument. The debate continues and it is WP:SYNTH to pretend it's over. Do you have a policy reason to oppose the addition? The quoted experts are well credentialed. Podcasts can be used as sources. The fact that you don't like this podcast is not relevant. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a core policy, and you don't seem to know what WP:SYNTH is, either. Geogene (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WEIGHT:"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." These chaps are indeed prominent: Chris Collins, PhD, Professor of Radiology at New York University. His whole gig is determining the effects of radiation on human bodies. Professor Alan Carson Associate Editor of Journal of Neurology, Director National Managed Clinical Network for Acquired Brain Injury, Honorary Fellowship Royal College of Physicians Edinburgh. They both join the other proponents of the psychogenic theory already in the article. What is notable about them is that they are commenting specifically on the NAS report. In the case of Collins, he is addressing the basic physics involved with RF beams. To create an audible Frey effect that rises above street noises, you'd need to have enough power to cook a person's brain. These are not fringe scientists nor fringe opinions. They may not even be minority opinions. They are timely reputable opinions that bely the weakness of the NAS report, which isn't going to go away. Nor am I. I'm happy to work with you on adding their opinions in a way you find acceptable. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither Chris Collins nor Alan Carson have their own bio articles, nor does that podcast. Further, the psychogenic illness camp is already well represented in the artticle, probably beyond what is appropriate per WEIGHT. It shouldn't be added to, it should be trimmed. Regarding, bely the weakness of the NAS report, which isn't going to go away. Nor am I. It also sounds like you have some very strong opinions (WP:RGW) on this subject matter that may be disruptive. That podcast is obscure enough that I think it must have taken you a while to find it. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:MEDRS, not having a wikipage is not very significant. As to the podcast itself, it is a 2020 nominee for a Podcast Award and the host Wendy Zukerman is a nominee for a 2021 Ambie "Best Host" Award. So, c'mon. Let's talk about how best to include these positions. Perhaps one of the older outdated psychogenic bits can go. The important point is that the psychogenic explanation is not something that was vetted and discarded. It never got its day in court. Partly because, as Carson explains, there is an astounding lack of understanding, yes even amongst NAS experts, that psychogenic illness will indeed show up on an MRI.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

MPI will never be tested because it's an untestable hypothesis. There's no way to falsify it. Geogene (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you mistyped. I think you meant to say there is no way MPI can be proved. On the other hand, it's incredibly easy to falsify MPI. Any adequate cause other than MPI will disprove MPI. But it's not up to us to decide these things, is it? We just need to follow wiki policy. So if we have WP:RS that is SECONDARY quoting established experts, we have no reason not to include the really modest (in terms of space) opinion that a microwave signal strong enough to create a loud Frey effect would melt your brain. Which is both provable and falsifiable.DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just had a look at your transcript. Not only does UNDUE apply, you're cherrypicking the source, because he went on to admit that he doesn't actually know what a microwave weapon would sound like he’s just about ready to pop it in the bin -- but there’s one thing stopping him. Chris told us that the vast majority of the research into microwaves and what they can do to us -- is about safety -- nerds like Chris aren't trying to design weapons that use this stuff to hurt people....who knows what secret military scientists are cooking up?. So you don't know if it would definitely 'melt someone's brain like a jelly donut' or not. Geogene (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you are reading the transcript! Thanks. Yes, he's an actual scientist, so he's not going to phrase things absolutely. He has to base his opinion on the published research, as scientists do. And please note, he himself is responsible for a lot of those published papers. According to that, it would melt your brain. It's possible that there is some unknown technology about which no one has ever published that can penetrate walls and skulls and shake your brain in some way that doesn't also heat it up. It would be entirely new and work by some unknown mechanism. But weren't you just talking about falsification? By those standards there will always be some unknown technology that could do literally anything we want to think up. It's a weapon of the gaps. And it is WP:FRINGE. According to wiki policy, it's not undue to include his opinion which you rightly point out actually reflects the published research. If you want to modify the text to add the idea that he doesn't have access to all the secret weapons programs of all countries, I'd be fine with that addition. So how would you like to add the text? DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about adding the text. Not the cherrypicked misquote that you recently tried to add to the article, and I'm not going to add any variant of it because it's UNDUE weight on an obscure source, quoting a random professor. You might want to review WP:IDHT at this point. Geogene (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a misquote. "CC" is Professor Collins, "WZ" is the host and here is what they say from the transcript

"CC:And you would definitely fry somebody's brain before you could cause a loud sustained sound with a microwave weapon WZ: Oh wow, fry their brain? They'd see a singed burn patch? CC: Yea, I mean, you'd fry the skin too. To put this into perspective - you don't even, these patients don't even complain about a warming sensation, let alone being instantly fried."

DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Geogene is correct here. Using a statement by a random professor on a podcast to try to undermine a National Academics consensus report (or peer reviewed journal articles, etc.) is inconsistent with both due weight and WP:MEDRS. Neutrality^talk 03:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The NAS says "each possible cause remains speculative." So there isn't a mainstream scientific consensus on what happened. The two experts I am trying to add are not random. They are highly credentialed. The podcast part is neither here nor there, as it qualifies as third party WP:RS and SECONDARY. And when applying WP:MEDRS to a thesis that is itself according to the NAS "speculative", it is not undue to include the opinion of dissenting experts on the effects of radiation on the human body, and the effects of psychogenic illness on MRI evidence.DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

They're credentialed? So what: the NAS people are more highly credentialed than they are. Everybody's got an opinion on high profile things like this, that doesn't mean all of them have WEIGHT. If there were something demonstrably wrong with the NAS report, it would have been in the New York Times, not some random podcast nobody has heard of. Geogene (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You've said something to the effect of "random podcast nobody has ever heard of" at least three times now. Science Vs is a long running (2015) podcast owned first by Australian Broadcasting Corporation then bought by Gimlet Media which itself is now owned by Spotify hosted by Wendy Zukerman. It has over 13,000 reviews on Apple podcasts and a rating of 4.5 stars. It is Spotify's #1 science podcast in the US, Australia, Great Britain to name a few markets. It is Spotify's #48 podcast overall. It is Apple's #8 Science podcast in the US. So at the time the episode aired, there were two corporate boards and attendant legal teams involved. They employ fact checkers and provide inline citations in the transcript (152 in this episode). Podcasts are an increasing and significant form of current media and this particular podcast is the gold standard for reliability. You impugn my understanding of WP:RS and NPOV and yet continue WP:IDHT that this source is RS, SECONDARY and notable. The scientists I'm trying to include in the article are WP:ACADEMICS under criteria #1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I have proposed above, that we could trim some of the pre-NAS MPI content and replace it with this new stuff. This content is informed by and a reaction to the NAS report and reflects the current state of the literature. This is a very modest proposal for a small section of the page. PS: You should try listening to the podcast. Wendy's voice isn't everyone's cup of tea, but once you settle in, it's really quite good. Even by the standards of someone who is allergic to excessive debunking, as I assume you are, this show is even handed. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

In addition to all of the above. Science Vs was CNN Podcast pick of the week in 2016. Can we please stop saying this is a random podcast nobody has ever heard of? DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Barloh & Bartholomew (2020)

I noticed that this book [3] is being used as a source in the article. Given that the subject of this article is an ongoing international incident that routinely receives coverage in places like the New York Times, I'm wondering if it's appropriate to use sources like this when its top review came from Forteantimes.com, which is more associated with things like the market for haunted real estate [4]. FWIW, Forteantimes says, “This is a brilliant exposition of how social panics evolve and escalate; every fortean should read it.” Geogene (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is our description of one of the co-authors: "Robert Emerson Bartholomew (born August 17, 1958) is an American medical sociologist, journalist and author living in New Zealand. He is an Honorary Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. In addition to publishing more than 60 academic papers, he has written or co-written 16 popular science and skeptical non-fiction books". Burrobert (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What is an honorary senior lecturer, and how is that different from a lecturer or a senior lecturer? We have an article at [[5]] that says, Honorary titles (professor, reader, lecturer) in academia may be conferred on persons in recognition of contributions by a non-employee or by an employee beyond regular duties....Persons of lower prestige and academic achievements are appointed at ranks other than professor. Honorary readers are viewed higher than honorary senior lecturer and honorary lecturer it looks like this is not usually someone's day job, and it would normally take a lot more than that just to satisfy WP:PROF. He's best known for writing about things like UFOs and Bigfoot in Skeptical movement related media [6]. I don't think the sources that normally cover those things belong in an article as prominent as this one, and where they are used in Wikipedia, WP:PARITY is usually involved. This is not the same thing as claiming that those sources are unreliable for articles about things like alien abductions and clown hysterias, just that the current subject matter is an ambitious overshoot for those kinds of media, and that we can and therefore should do better than Psychology Today and Skeptical Inquirer here. A lot of Skeptic-type media personalities--the kinds of people that use "Skeptic" as a kind of job title--aren't recognized as real world experts outside of the skeptic movement, they tend to be self-taught hobbyists that happen to have the time to debunk the latest Sasquatch sightings over and over again. It seems WP:UNDUE to use sources of this tier to try to criticize the National Academies of Science and Medicine and push a viewpoint that world class journalism isn't. Geogene (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have wandered off on a tangent about Bartholomew who is academically qualified with a speciality in mass psychogenic illness (with a PhD in Sociology from James Cook University, an MA in Australian Sociology from Flinders University of South Australia and an MA in American Sociology from State University of New York at Albany), who has published more than 60 academic papers and who has made the same arguments about the Havana syndrome in peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Burrobert (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We should also consider Robert Baloh who is the Director of the Neuro-otology Laboratory and Professor of Neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California. Burrobert (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tangent? You were the one that brought up Bartholomew's expertise. I'm fine with covering minority viewpoints in the article, in proportion to the extent that their views are represented in reliable sources. That doesn't seem to be that much right now, especially since we seem to be dredging around for obscure sources, like paranormal investigation magazines. The recent journalistic coverage, like Guardian [7] and Deutsche Welle [8] the other day, seems to be taking the microwave gun hypothesis as a tentative fact. That may not have always been the case, and it may not continue to be the case in the future. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The two articles mostly regurgitate information fed from the US state apparatus, such as CIA and NSA. There was also an anecdote about someone who developed Parkinson's disease but had a "family history of Parkinson’s and any causal effect between microwave radiation and the disease is unknown, and differs from the more recent cases" (what was the point of mentioning it one might wonder). Obviously anything that comes from sources such as the CIA and NSA would need to be attributed since spies are paid to lie. One reason to be wary of anything said by the US regime about the incidents is that it has a motive to play them up as it did with the Russian bounty program story to stop Trump withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

Bartholomew and Baloh's assessment doesn't agree with that of the US state apparatus but it has been covered in the mainstream media. Burrobert (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert that we should not take government reports as being beyond reproach. The New York Times will dutifully report obvious lies if they come from the DOS, CIA, NAS, oh say, the president. Geogene, you may be convinced by the NAS report, and therefore you set the bar really high to include the other views. But the scientific community is not convinced. I mean, let's just let the NAS explain it the way they do in the article. "each possible cause remains speculative." There is no scientific consensus because there can't possibly be one given the paucity of data. If we are in the realm of speculation, it is not undue to include the other views. Bartholomew and Baloh's expertise is relevant.DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

These statements reflect a significant lack of understanding of the reliable source and neutrality policies. Geogene (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"The New York Times will dutifully report obvious lies if they come from the DOS, CIA, NAS, oh say, the president.” that does not appear to be with our current reliability consensus for NYT. Like Geogene I question your understanding of verifiability and neutrality policies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Maybe I'm not saying it in a clear way. I'm not impugning the NYT specifically. I'm not saying the NYT is not WP:RS. My point is that The New York Times reporting the finding of the NAS does not magically make the finding uncontroversial. Nor is the NYT (nor any mainstream non-specialist news outlet) determinate of scientific consensus. For instance, if the CIA says "the moon is made of cheese," and the NYT reports that the CIA said that, we are allowed to indicate her on wikipedia that this is a controversial statement amongst scientists. And we can say that this is a controversial statement even if the NYT failed to frame it properly as a controversial statement, and even if the types of RS that do report on the scientific consensus aren't widely read. Scientists write for each other not for a general audience. To delete the types of sources I am trying to include because, in your personal estimation, they aren't as good as the NYT, is to fail to understand the context of this page. A source that's read by the experts, even if it's a pre-print or a journal you haven't heard of, may actually be a better source than the NYT. We are talking about speculative scientific and medical claims. The standards are different than just your run of the mill WP:RS. The appropriate policies are WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Specifically: "Different types of sources have different strengths and weaknesses. A type of source that is good for scientific information is not usually as reliable for political information, and vice versa."Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/FAQ#Why do you have special rules for medical information? DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Apropos of the NYT and science reporting: In 1920, it famously ran an article proclaiming that space flight was impossible because there was nothing in space for the exhaust to push against. Just sayin'. See here. RobP (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, it does not seem reasonable that the skeptical criticism is under Cuba, as it is applicable to the issue generally (including reports from China and elsewhere). Also, a summary of the criticism deserves to be in the lead, because a reader who stops reading there (as many do) will not know there is ANY dispute at all. In fact, I am the editor who restructured this article years ago (I still have the largest share of the text), including breaking it up into Cuba and China, and at that time I had a summary of the skeptical position in the lead. RobP (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

AND, let me point out that if we only included mainstream media RS for UFO reports, well, you get the picture I hope. They all say or imply the US gov't has admitted they are tracking aliens. Only the skeptical media such as Skeptical Inquirer presents the ACTUAL truth... that the media frame the news to enhance clicks or ratings, and that no such admission has occurred. RobP (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Statements like Only the skeptical media such as Skeptical Inquirer presents the ACTUAL truth... there are *some* topic areas where Skeptical Inquirer is one of the best sources available--those are paranormal/UFO articles, where WP:PARITY applies. It doesn't apply across all of Wikipedia, though, and in most places that would be incompatible with RS, weight, and the neutrality policy. If self-identified skeptics start behaving in higher profile areas like they do in classical paranormal topic areas, then it's likely they're going to start being seen as a bunch of irritating activist Truth Warriors. Nobody like those kinds of editors. Geogene (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to when the topics concern the intersection of science and media just like belief in UFOs or alien abductions, but you are unfairy limiting the scope of "Scientific skepticism" to "traditional topics." In the case of mass psychogenic illness (such as likely is the case here) this is something "skeptics" evaluate also - on the basis of understanding biases and the understood failings of human reasoning. And I like "Truth Warrior." Maybe I'll change my Wiki ID. RobP (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Everybody likes skeptics when they are skeptical about dumb (read "other people's") ideas. Here's the thing, Geogene, you are essentially charging skeptical sources with bias. But per policy, bias is not a reason to exclude a source that cites credible relevant experts. See WP:NPOV

"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality##Bias in sources"

Science Based Medicine, Skeptical Inquirer, and yes even self published materials and blogs are widely used on wikipedia as RS. They are especially useful when the topic is one that the popular press is likely to get wrong. As they have in this case per WP:MEDRS. You have no grounds to exclude these sources. Let's work together on including them in a way you find tolerable. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not excluding those sources here because they're biased, but because they're of much lower quality, and better sources are available. It's also my opinion that, no, it doesn't help that editors who identify as skeptics are pushing obscure sources that strongly aligned with the Skeptic movement. That's activist POV-pushing. Geogene (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Who says they are of "lower quality" and "obscure"? Who determines the other sources "are better? AND... aligning with "the skeptical movement" is all about being on the side of science and getting to the truth. My perception is that you care not about either. I am glad Wikipedia does. Irritating Truth Warrior RP2006 out. RobP (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW... I just looked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and turns out that Science-Based medicine has the highest rating in the list. So WHAT are you talking about? Do you now wish to retract that " but because they're of much lower quality..."? Or do you want to dig in? RobP (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I had been searching that page but didn't tap to "S". Well that settles it. Geogene, shall I just revert your revert or was there something else about my additions you had a problem with besides the source? You said that they "weren't in the room" so couldn't know the agenda. The word "agenda" here, means literally what they covered in the meetings. I see how it has a connotation of "bias" these days. Should we just cut that single word? they say the committee was "steered to focus on MW weapons". Here is the original: "However, Physicist Kenneth Foster and Biophysicist C-K Chou, criticized the committee, saying it was "steered by its agenda to focus on microwave weapons as the cause of the symptoms" and "lacked the time and resources to explore other theories. In particular, it lacked participation by a social psychologist with expertise in mass psychogenic illness (an explanation proposed by, among others, the famous psychiatrist Simon Wessely of King’s College London)." DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Self-published, non-peer-reviewed report of the "Japan EMF Information Center"???

Would it be accurate to describe the reports from NAS and University of Michigan (Tech Report CSE-TR-001-18) as self-published, non-peer-reviewed reports? By the way I am not saying we should exclude those reports. Self-published, non-peer reviewed reports from established subject matter experts are allowed as sources. Burrobert (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Geogene:@Neutrality: I'm confused, Burrobert. Are you talking about the "Japan EMF Information Center" or the NAS report? The Japan EMF Information Center" I'll be calling that JEIC, has a rapid response group (RRG) which is "composed of a coordinator and experts in all areas of science appropriate for reviewing and assessing scientific studies. Prof. M. H. Repacholi has served as the coordinator from the time of launch of RRG in 2010." Their paper is a preprint response to the NAS that includes a meta analysis* of the relevant literature. As such it is not PRIMARY, but WP:SECONDARY. It also lists all the reasons the microwave hypothesis does not match either the symptoms or the physics of the speculative attacks. Professor Michael H. Repacholi is the Former Team Leader of the WHO Radiation and Environmental Health Unit. He qualifies as WP:ACADEMICS under criteria #1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Here is the preprint where you can see Repacholi is given top billing. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I was commenting on the reason given in the edit for removing mention of the JEIC report. I agree with you that the JEIC report seems to have been produced by subject matter experts and as such is fine as a source even though it is self-published and not peer reviewed (I am not sure that our policy mentions being peer reviewed as important anyway). I was pointing out that that NAS and University of Michigan reports that we cite are also self-published and not peer reviewed. Burrobert (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Got it. That's what I thought. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The notability standards like WP:ACADEMICS) are about which people meet the threshold for a biographical article. That is completely different from the due weight/reliable sourcing standards. Neutrality^talk 14:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. A notable relevant expert is a reliable source. As to due weight, see my remark below. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You’ve thanked Neutrality for engaging yet you have not actually engaged at all with their point about your use of WP:ACADEMICS. Was it a mistake or do you not understand how due weight or our reliable sourcing standards work? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)\

In my mind prominent=notable. Perhaps that's the wrong jargon. Next time I'll say "prominent per WP:DUE" So let's see if we can show how they are related. 1. Per WP:DUE "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" 2.Repacholi is the Former Team Leader of the WHO Radiation and Environmental Health Unit, so yes, he is both notable and prominent. Do you not agree? DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If his views are notable and prominent then they will have been reported on be independent reliable sources. Have they been? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The report at issue from the "Japan EMF Information Center" appears to be a self-published report from an obscure organization. It is not on the same planet as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. I also have seen no secondary coverage of JEIC's opinion. If it's truly a "preprint," then we can wait until it's actually been published and reassess. Neutrality^talk 14:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point about it being a preprint and wanting further confirmation. I think we already have that. The JEIC-RRG is in accord with all the other dissenting opinions already on the page. It's in agreement with the expert opinion of Professor Collins (not yet on the page, but soon). What's more, it is supported by "Science Vs" which is WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY (though Geogene disagrees about that). It is our job to give an accurate depiction of the state of the scientific consensus. NAS itself says all causes are speculative. In other words, there is NO CONSENSUS, by the NAS' own admission. So we do in fact owe WP:Balance. Right now the page says, essentially, "some experts disagree, one even called it "scifi"" What we owe is the actual REASONS many experts disagree. The JEIC-RRG preprint gives a nice summary of the actual state of the opposing view: 1. the literature doesn't support the pattern of symptoms having a MW cause, 2. The physics do not agree with the MW conjecture (heat would be felt, brains would melt, electronics would be interfered with, the device would be huge, etc) 3. The history of MW use in espionage do not agree with it (The Soviets used it to interfere with electronics not brains, and it was thwarted by mere screens on the windows). If you would be willing to stop reverting me long enough to let me add the relevant info and sources, I think we could collaborate on bringing the balance this page cries out for. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We don’t generally use preprints for anything, best to wait until its published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That does seem like the most prudent course, but the reason I'm pushing this so hard is that this paper contains a very succinct summation of the anti-microwave camp's reasons. (see my reasons list above). Don't you think the article would be better served with more than mudslinging terms like "science fiction" and actual science-based reasons? As you will see in WP:MEDRS, there can be an over reliance on popular reporting to the detriment of our readers. The popular press almost never gets the science right. We do better to listen to the experts who don't always get published. Given that this whitepaper is not primary research but a review of the literature* and a response to NAS, it's really quite conservative to include their arguments. These aren't the sort of arguments that get reversed in peer review. (*I was wrong to write "meta analysis" above but someone had commented on my comment before I cold change it to "review") DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If its a review of the literature then just wait until its been published. I can’t find any mention of this in the popular press, I can hardly find any coverage of JEIC at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPS:"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Repacholi is all of the above. "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Yup. He is in accord with the opinions of Collins, Chou and Foster. All published in WP:RS Science Based Medicine and Science Vs. "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I don't think this Havana Syndrome article is WP:BLP, but we should be careful not to make mass psychogenic illness sound like "just in their heads." That's what this edit was all about. It's not just in their heads, it's in their MRI's. Had the NAS had any experts in that field on the committee, they would have known that: "In 2021, Alan Carson, a neuropsychiatrist at The University of Edinburgh, responded that distinct and sudden symptoms often do have psychogenic causes, and that the staff meeting where embassy workers were told they were being attacked by a sonic weapon could have been the origin of the group psychological and social factors. Best. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Lets assume for a second that you’re right about all that... It still wouldn't be WP:DUE without coverage from an independent WP:RS. Do we have any such coverage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Geogene:@Neutrality:@Horse Eye's Back: Yes! I do. Science Vs, Science Based Medicine both have covered equally qualified experts saying the same thing. BUT, you are missing the whole point of the policy quote above. The experts are THEMSELVES the RS. Again, I say it yet again, when it comes to medical claims, we don't follow the press, we follow the experts. Blogs are allowed, skeptical sources are allowed, as long as the experts are recognized and relevant. And the fact that all of these dissenters are agreeing with each other. We don't have to wait for the NYT. We have a responsibility to our readers to relay the actual state of the scientific consensus. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the "science fiction" quip is mudslinging and wouldn't mind seeing it gone, but you'd have to ask Burrobert about that [9]. Geogene (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes the "sci-fi" description is not very enlightening. The more cogent assessments of the NAS report, which I included and which used the same BuzzFeed source as the "sci-fi statement", seem to have been removed:

• The panel's work was hampered by a lack of information, such as medical testing data, about the people involved. This limited what the panel could say about the plausible explanations for the phenomenon. In particular, it was unable to examine the possibility that "mass psychological illness" was the cause because it did not have data that would allow it to map social networks of those affected.
• The report does not make a coherent argument why microwaves should be involved.
• The panel members lacked experience in biological effects of microwaves.

Burrobert (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert, but more importantly a bunch of PhDs and professor who are expert in the field agree as well. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Opinion piece in FP

There's a critical opinion piece in Foreign Policy by a chemist from LANL. This is the kind of journalistic, geopolitical current events source I happen to prefer for this subject area, what do other people think about it? [10] Geogene (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it looks like a good source for criticism of the NAS report. Some of its points are available in sources we have already used. The author has a relevant scientific background. Whether her scientific standing is as strong as other commentators is unclear but it may be pointless trying to make such comparisons. Her article doesn't discuss the report's inability to consider mass hysteria but it covers the other two points I mentioned above, namely:

• The report does not make a coherent argument why microwaves should be involved. (With no clear biological connection of microwaves to Havana syndrome, it’s not possible to describe a weapon that would produce that syndrome. ... If this weapon exists, knowing how it works is critical. The NAS report fails to make this connection.)
• The panel members lacked experience in biological effects of microwaves. (The references are weak, and the committee includes no experts in microwaves and their effects. The committee is made up mostly of experts in medical-related fields. Only two out of 19 seem likely to have any expertise in microwave technology, and it is not their speciality.)

Burrobert (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree to source. What she says is accurate physics. I would add to Burrobert's list (per this new source)

• microwave energy that could produce a loud Frey effect would heat the skin of the target, and
• none of the victims reported feeling heat.

This point is corroborated by Professor Collins, who definitely has the required credentials. He's Professor of Radiology at New York University, and he says exactly that.

Professor Collins: "And you would definitely fry somebody's brain before you could cause a loud sustained sound with a microwave weapon. Host: Oh wow, fry their brain? They'd see a singed burn patch? Professor Collins: Yea, I mean, you'd fry the skin too. To put this into perspective - you don't even, these patients don't even complain about a warming sensation, let alone being instantly fried."Science Vs" DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose we include this source as well as the Science Based Medicine sources (being both a better source and better experts) to include all the relevant reasons for criticizing the NAS report. AS RobP points out above Science Based Medicine has the highest rating per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sourcesDolyaIskrina (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No, because UNDUE. We've discussed this, and you're WP:BLUDGEONing it. Geogene (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

CDC Report

This section needs work. I'd love help from any editors who are familiar with WP:MEDRS. I'm not sure if the CDC report technically qualifies as PRIMARY, but nonetheless, we should not be using too much of the methodology from the inside of the report while downplaying the conclusion. Further, we should use third party experts when it comes to drawing conclusions as to what the report actually says. Please read the relevant policy here. Specifically: "Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources." Again, I'm not sure this report qualifies as primary, but I think the general principle applies. Here are the expert opinions that are not reflected by the current edit:

BuzzFeed News has two third party experts who say

“The only conclusion that seems clear is that a constellation of neurobehavioral symptoms was experienced among embassy personnel, but the underlying reasons for the symptoms are not known and the pattern of symptoms does not correspond to any known diseases,” said Brown University epidemiologist David Savitz."

And

""Essentially the CDC is saying that they have no idea what happened in Cuba," said UCLA neurologist Robert Baloh, who reviewed the report for BuzzFeed News. "CDC should have been called in at the beginning."

Here is the text from the current edit with two rearrangements from me, and my proposed new edits. Mostly edits for readability and NPOV:

In response to demands from the U.S. Congress to investigate, and upon a December 2017 request from the State Department, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a "Cuba Unexplained Events Investigation." The two-year epidemiologic investigation comprised a review of the medical records of 95 U.S. diplomats and family members in Havana who reported symptoms, and resulted in a final report, marked for official use only, dated December 2019. In January 2021, the report was obtained by both BuzzFeed News and George Washington University's National Security Archive pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act requests (some material in the released report was redacted for medical privacy reasons). The CDC developed a "case definition" of the Havana syndrome, consisting of a biphasic (two-stage) syndrome, with a first phase of symptoms (sometimes closely after an auditory or sensory event) followed by a subsequent onset of "cognitive deficits or vestibular disturbances" some time later. The report concluded that, "Of the 95 persons whose medical records CDC evaluated, 15 had illnesses that met the criteria for a presumptive case definition. CDC classified 31 others as possible cases and the remaining 49 as not likely to be a case." Two years later, six of the subjects in the CDC investigation were still being rehabilitated for their injuries, and four of them were still unable to return to work.(I have no idea what this info adds. That people are suffering?) The CDC considered conducting a retrospective case–control study, but ultimately chose not to do so due to the length of time between the event and the onset of symptoms, which (if such a study were conducted) could lead to recall and selection biases that "could generate misleading or obscured findings." The CDC report came to no conclusion about the source of the illnesses and symptoms experienced, concluding, "The evaluations conducted thus far have not identified a mechanism of injury, process of exposure, effective treatment, or mitigating factor for the unexplained cluster of symptoms experienced by those stationed in Havana." New: ""Essentially the CDC is saying that they have no idea what happened in Cuba," said UCLA neurologist Robert Baloh.

Thanks for any input. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with MEDRS. I have no idea what MEDRS has to do with what you're proposing. BuzzFeed News isn't a MEDRS source, nor are cherrypicked medical opinions from individual medical doctors. It looks like what you're proposing here would have the effect of sweeping reliably sourced information about victims still being affected two years later under the rug, information that seems unfriendly to your preferred MPI hypothesis. Geogene (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Long lasting and serious symptoms are not at all at odds with MPI. Please re-read what Alan Carson says in the interview above. Carson says (a little indirectly) that it can cause brain damage that shows up on MRI. And I don't prefer MPI. I prefer that the article have WP:BALANCE. 2. Please stop accusing me of cherry picking. The quoted experts are the experts that Buzzfeed News picked in an article about the CDC report, not me. 3. If you don't know what MEDRS has to do with a CDC report on a pattern of symptoms, then you don't know MEDRS. 4. I don't want to sweep anything under the rug. And I definitely don't want people who were injured on the job in service of my country to be made to feel that it's "just in their head" or for them to get anything less than full compensation for their injuries however they got them. Should it turn out to be MPI that doesn't make it any less serious. Anyone suffering from it deserves full compensation as per any work injury. So I'll take your point and not delete that portion. Do you have any other suggestions? DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"A little indirectly" You keep repeating that, so I'm going to comment on it. Carson claimed that MPI might show up in brain scans, based on experiments on rats showing that stressing them consistently over a long period of time can supposedly show up on their MRIs. Nobody knows what MPI in humans would look like in a brain scan, if it would show up at all. It is pure speculation by MPI proponents, the same people who complain about microwave weapons being speculative. Geogene (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• I largely disagree with DolyaIskrina's proposal above and DolyaIskrina's recent proposed edits (which are different from what was proposed at talk), and I agree with Geogene:
  • The existing text does not "downplay the conclusion" of the CDC report; to the contrary, it states it quite clearly and directly.
  • I'm willing to accept some of the wording trim edits, which I left intact, but I see zero reason or justification (here or in edit summaries) for deleting (1) the CDC case definition or (2) the fact that the State Department asked the CDC to investigate in 2017. These are basic, central facts, inclusion takes up very little space, and they are necessary to orient the reader.
  • I obviously oppose cutting the description of the progress of the symptoms in the Havana group (this is central, well-sourced basic info, and I wholly agree with Geogene that this would have the effect of sweeping reliably sourced information about victims still being affected two years later under the rug.
  • I oppose including the new quote from Baloh from Buzzfeed. This is plainly undue weight. Baloh's position is already represented clearly elsewhere in the article. Neutrality^talk 16:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with not including Beloh, but we shouldn't ignore his overall take, nor the take of the other expert in the article, Savitz, when determining how much detail is warranted. If the Buzzfeed News author thought their opinion was worthy and we think his article is worthy, on what grounds do we omit the experts? That's how MEDRS works. We are not qualified to read the CDC report and decide for ourselves which bits are relevant. We should follow both the conclusion of the CDC and the opinion of experts. And in this case, they agree with one another. CDC don't know what happened. Therefore, to devote this much ink is WP:UNDUE. By analogy, imagine a report that found no causality between whistling and cancer. The report would actually list a number of people who whistled and also had cancer. To talk in great detail about whistlers who had cancer would give people the wrong impression, wouldn't it? Anyway, I've agreed to keep the victims stuff and never tried to cut it. I've agreed to not put in Beloh or Savitz. What are the stylistic changes you agreed to? Are they already on the page? If you'd agree to stop reverting me whole scale I can try more modest edits to see if you find them acceptable. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't claim MEDRS to include BuzzFeed News, because BuzzFeed News isn't a MEDRS quality source. And if this is a MEDRS domain (and it might be), then it's unlikely you're going to find MEDRS quality sources to make any claims about speculative technology like microwave weapons. Geogene (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsolved Crime/Conspiracy Theory/Pseudoscience

What is the rational behind Havana Syndrome being listed as an "Unsolved Crime" rather than a conspiracy theory or pseudoscience? Cathegorizing Havana Syndrome as an "unsolved crime" makes assumptions of what really happened that there is no evidence for. From what I've read there's nothing that indicates that a crime has been committed. There are a number of people who have exhibited certain symptons and who have certain injuries, but if this had not taken place in Cuba allegations hat government agents are making people sick with ray guns would be considered conspiracy theories or pseudoscience until extraordinary evidence to back up such extraordinary claims was presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.126.199 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done I removed the category. Categorization of the entire subject as pseudoscience doesn't seem neutral or consistent with the sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"if this had not taken place in Cuba allegations that government agents are making people sick with ray guns would be considered conspiracy theories or pseudoscience until extraordinary evidence to back up such extraordinary claims was presented". Very well put. Burrobert (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)