Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Protected edit request on 11 April 2024

In the "External links" section, please italicize "Havana Syndrome" in the Vice News: Havana Syndrome podcast link, per MOS:MAJORWORK, under the "Television and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials" clause. I.e., change to [[Vice News]]: [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/havana-syndrome/id1661362245 ''Havana Syndrome'' podcast] (leaving the remained of the line alone). —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

NIH reports deleted?

Why was all the info about the March 2024 NIH reports funded by the US gov't (and published in JAMA) deleted from this article? This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats. Rp2006 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The information was removed due to a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines as they relate to this topic. I support restoring the content, citing any of the credible sources mentioned below, with clear attribution of all claims to these sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/us/politics/havana-syndrome-brain-studies-nih.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/no-evidence-of-brain-injury-in-people-suffering-havana-syndrome-us-study

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-study-finds-no-brain-injuries-among-havana-syndrome-patients

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/18/1239087164/nih-studies-no-pattern-harm-havana-syndrome-patients-brains

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/health/havana-syndrome-studies/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/18/nih-havana-syndrome-mri-scans/

https://apnews.com/article/havana-syndrome-diplomat-health-brain-ea64e5c59d57e44a19aab40ac1b91e0d

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/18/havana-syndrome-study-government-officials

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-study-finds-no-evidence-havana-syndrome-brain-injury-2024-03-18/ FailedMusician (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is historically important info ← have you got a source saying that? Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The editor expressed their view on the historical significance of the NIH study, a perspective I share. This viewpoint doesn't require a source for our discussion since it wasn't suggested to be directly included in the article. FailedMusician (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I apply Hitchen's razor to that then. Bon courage (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage Please note that talk page guidelines prohibit the behaviour you're displaying here. The editor didn't propose adding their personal opinion to the article in relation to the historically importance of the NIH study, and your comments here lack a policy-based rationale for including or excluding the content in question, much like in discussions above. Continued actions of this nature, and any further veiled threats [1], will result in an immediate escalation to an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum so personal views have no place here, unless to inform article content. In which case they need to be evidenced. Evidence that something was "historically significant" would be coverage from a history RS, or a statement in RS to that effect. Bon courage (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that @Rp2006 expressed an opinion on the NIH study's historical significance to support its inclusion in the article. Yet, you have not offered your opinion on the matter or the sources I've provided above. FailedMusician (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think my opinion matters that much; let's just follow the WP:PAGs. For anything in the realm of biomedicine we need WP:MEDRS, and these sources are WP:MEDPOP. They may however have other uses. Bon courage (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we can't include any attributed claims relating to the widely reported NIH study from the reliable sources? FailedMusician (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

None of the list you posted above are 'the reliable sources' as far as WP:MEDRS is concerned. MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Just so that I understand your argument, for the wording of an RFC, are you saying that news sources, even when there are ten of them, can't be used for attributed claims? FailedMusician (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Not about biomedical information, no. This is pretty basic sourcing stuff. I would suggest you seek clarification about this at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RSN before wasting community time with an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of consensus among editors on distinguishing between biomedical information and the inclusion of news sources for the subject's political aspects, an RFC could determine the article's content scope and sourcing standards. Indeed we can post the RFC to WP:RSN to draw in more editors. FailedMusician (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BMI requires WP:MEDRS sources. Always.

Since we are talking about WP:PRIMARY medical studies it is unlikely that they could be used to support any kind of statement on Wikipedia.

As far as the encyclopedia is concerned they are useless as they are not reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If you include political comments made by non-experts in news reports that are associated with the potential causes, you could just as well include comments made that the IC's recent conclusion that a foreign adversary attack is unlikely may have been influenced by ulterior motivates.

I think neither speculation that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed, nor speculation that the attack hypothesis was downplayed are worthy of encyclopedic knowledge. Other speculations coming from news commentators, such as financial incentives, etc, aren't worthy of including either. Political drama playing out in the news media is polarized, highly speculative, and generally very unreliable. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If this information isn't notable, then neither is 40% of what is on the page right now. The exact same type of RS is being used. So let's put it in or start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Bon courage (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, so it seems there is a consensus here to reinstate the content. FailedMusician (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, the consensus can only be to "start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies". Bon courage (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, your opinion has been noted. FailedMusician (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We should cut all WP:BMI unless sourced with WP:MEDRS and only keep WP:NOTBMI {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be reinstated without being misrepresented. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. FailedMusician (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats."

Again you're misrepresenting the NIH studies. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone who opposes inclusion of the 2024 NIH reports (as reported by major RS such as NY Times, BBC, etc) explain the opposition? I read the comments above and I don't grasp the opposition. Are the opposers suggesting that the entire "Chronology of investigations, studies... " section should be deleted? That section seems exceedingly encyclopedic, because H.S. is an evolving situation, and new data is coming out every few months. A chronology of the history seems very encyclopedic. Or is the opposition based on the fact that ALL data from the article related to politics and espionage should be deleted (leaving only medical info)? Even if that were the appproach: the NIH studies were 100% medical. Or is the opposition related to the fact that NIH studies are primary sources? But they were noted by many major media sources. Noleander (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

All these are unreliable sources. Primary research reported on by new organisations is notoriously poor. We have really good sources on this, so why is the barrel being scraped? Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say the NIH reports from JAMA are unreliable? Or are you saying the NY Times is unreliable? What about other studies in years 2018 to 2023 (listed in the Studies section) ... do you have the same opinion of those prior studies? Do you propose removing the entire "Studies" section? When you say "we have really good sources" which specific sources are you considering? I ask all these questions because your point seems a bit irrational, no offense. Noleander (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's primary research, so unverified. Primary research is often wrong; read WP:WHYMEDRS if you want some background. The NYT is an unreliable sourcer for health content (like all newspapers). This is well established consensus on Wikipedia, for very good reasons. To be clear all the primary research should go: the article needs a major haircut. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The US gov't sponsored the early JAMA reports finding supposed evidence of energy weapon attacks, and it and the media used this result to claim attacks had occurred. And of course this was widely (and sensationally) covered in the media. How is this NOT acceptable to report on here? And then the US gov't sponsored another set of studies - also published in JAMA - which largely contradicted the early JAMA reports. And the media also reported this. And this information also should not be in this article? Rp2006 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Because as you can see the primary studies are often contradictory/unreliable. Which one is right? We wait for the matter to be settled through the process of science. That's what Reviews are made for @Rp2006. Those reports are unreliable for WP:BMI {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So then, you are advocating removing refs to the JAMA reports in the section "Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis"? Rp2006 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 April 2024 (2)

In the Causes section add links to the relevant articles:

A review article of 2023 said the scientific literature has proposed several possible causes of Havana syndrome, with the most plausible being a radio frequency weapon, a functional disorder, or a psychogenic disease.

Also: the source [2] states that "Directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy" is "The most plausible mechanism" not all three causes and also mentions neurotoxins as one of the causes most favoured in the literature.

A review article of 2023 said the scientific literature has proposed several possible causes of Havana syndrome, with the most plausible being a radio frequency weapon. Other likely potential causes identified are a functional disorder, a psychogenic disease or chemicals/neurotoxins.

The second edit fixes an obviously incomplete and imprecise sentence. I'm sure someone would object to it but I'm not sure if that makes it controversial. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done No comments or opposition, so request carried out in full — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @MSGJ {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 April 2024

Because RF is not a commonly known abbreviation, change RF in the final paragraph of the lead section to radio frequency. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 April 2024

First sentence in the lead: "formally" should be changed to "also known as". If either of these terms predates the other, it is HS that came first. Also many current articles prefer AHI, so AHI is not "formally" in any possible sense of the word.

"(formally "anomalous health incidents")

References

DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

A formal name does not designate which came first but rather which term is preferred in the academic literature. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Doh, formally not formerly. I'm embarrassed. But still. I think "also known as" is much more user friendly. Especially since there is nothing formal about AHI. It's not a diagnosis. There have been over a thousand claimed cases and only 24 that seem to remain unaccounted for. Which of those would be AHI? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Or "formally known as"? 196.188.51.242 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That would help. However, I just did a quick search of Wikipedia. "formally called" "formally known as" barely appear in wikipedia. So far I haven't found "formally x" in any lede at all. Contrast that with "informally" which is used much more. I am personally very familiar with "informally" but have never seen "formally" used in a lede. This is an odd bird and needs to be culled. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You may be right. I added it just to give it the formal name that government agencies refer to it by after reading about it in the Insider article. FailedMusician (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Ferien (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all! DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI

This is easier than tryiong to tell each user.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Beyond Cuba" section (formatting only discussion)

I propose that we merge "Elsewhere in Asia" and "Elsewhere" into the two paragraphs at the top. Right now its a bit of a mess... Currently we spread non-China Asia stuff among the three sections, for example you won't find Taiwan in "Elsewhere in Asia" but you will find it at the top and in elsewhere. No content would be added or dropped, the existing paragraphs/sentences would just be integrated together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you throw up what that would look like in talk? It sounds non-controversial but would like to see. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Have done so, to me this looks a lot cleaner and the groupings make more sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that looks good to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I support this, but I have a few questions.

Could we stack notes 12-18 in one efn/ref? Could we remove the NYT's speculative quote? Also: "While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal." - the phrasing is a bit tendentious, could we just state plainly (for context) that these talks were ongoing at the time? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We likely could, but those sorts of changes are not within the scope of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, the first one is though. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Support as well {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to avoid trying to list every claimed incident. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree but this discussion is only to change the format of the extant text on the page. And within the bounds of this discussion I like the suggestion. We can discuss trimming content at a later date - preferably after we've calmed down the sturm und drang over 60 minutes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Beyond Cuba (proposed)

Beginning in late 2017, suspected attacks targeting U.S. intelligence personnel were reported in an expanding set of locations around the world, including Moscow, Russia; Tbilisi, Georgia; Poland; Taiwan; and Australia. Other reports came from Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria, among other countries. One of the CIA officials with symptoms in Australia and Taiwan was one of the agency's top five officials. The Russian embassy in Australia dismissed reports of Russian operatives targeting CIA personnel in Australia.

The U.S. government has not released the number of affected persons, but media reporting indicated a total of 130 possible cases by the end of May 2021, rising to more than 200 by mid-September 2021. The cases variously affected CIA, U.S. military, and State Department personnel and their family members. Some reports, after investigation, were determined to be possibly related to Havana syndrome, while others were determined to be unrelated; BBC News reported in 2021 that "One former official reckons around half the cases reported by US officials are possibly linked to attacks by an adversary."

In August 2021, it was reported that two American diplomats were evacuated from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam, after incidents of Havana syndrome were reported. These reported cases also delayed Vice President Kamala Harris's visit to Vietnam. In September 2021, an aide-de-camp of CIA director William J. Burns reported symptoms consistent with those of Havana syndrome on a diplomatic visit to India. In October 2021, it was reported that U.S. embassy personnel and their families in Bogota, Colombia, had developed symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome.

China

Consulate General of the United States in Guangzhou

Starting in early 2018, U.S. diplomats in China began reporting symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome. The first such incident was reported by an American diplomat in China in April 2018 at the Guangzhou consulate, the largest U.S. consulate in China. The employee reported that he had been experiencing symptoms since late 2017. Several individuals were taken to the U.S. for medical examination. A USAID employee at the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, reported a different incident in September 2017; the employee's report was discounted by the U.S. State Department.

Answering questions from the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testified that U.S. diplomatic staff in Guangzhou had reported symptoms "very similar" to, and "entirely consistent" with, those reported from Cuba. On June 6, 2018, The New York Times reported that at least two additional U.S. diplomats stationed at the Guangzhou consulate had been evacuated from China and reported that "it remains unclear whether the illnesses are the result of attacks at all. Other theories have included toxins, listening devices that accidentally emitted harmful sounds, or even mass hysteria." In June 2018, the State Department announced that a task force had been assembled to investigate the reports and expanded their health warning to all of mainland China amid reports some US diplomats outside of Guangzhou had experienced the same symptoms resembling a brain injury. The warning told anyone who experienced "unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises" to "not attempt to locate their source".

Washington, D.C., area

In 2019, a White House official reported experiencing debilitating symptoms while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb of Washington; the incident was publicly reported in 2020. In November 2020, a similar incident was reported on The Ellipse, a lawn adjacent to the south side of the White House. Both incidents were similar to those that were reported to have struck dozens of U.S. personnel overseas, including CIA and State Department personnel. Federal agencies investigated the incident at The Ellipse, and Defense Department officials briefed members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee in April 2021. Investigators told members of Congress that they had not been able to determine the cause of the events or who was responsible.

Europe

U.S. embassy in Vienna, Austria

In 2021, dozens of U.S. personnel stationed in Vienna, including diplomats, intelligence officials, and some children of U.S. employees, had Havana syndrome-like symptoms. The State Department confirmed in July 2021 that it was investigating the reports. The Austrian foreign ministry stated it was collaborating with American investigators. Aside from Havana, Vienna has reported the most incidents. While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal. In September 2021, the CIA station chief in Vienna (the top U.S. intelligence officer in the country) was recalled over concerns over his management; he had been criticized for not taking quicker action in response to the Havana syndrome cases at his post.

In the months preceding August 2021, cases of Havana syndrome were reported at the U.S. embassy in Berlin, Germany, including from two U.S. officials who sought medical treatment. Several new cases were reported at the embassy in October 2021.

In 2021, the CIA evacuated an intelligence officer serving in Serbia suspected of being a victim of the neurological attack.

Three White House staffers reported symptoms at the InterContinental London Park Lane in late May 2019.

References

Quality sources

This is a review article in an Index medicus journal; a strong WP:MEDRS:

• Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023). "Havana syndrome: a scoping review of the existing literature". Rev Environ Health (Review). 38 (4): 655–661. doi:10.1515/reveh-2021-0182. PMID 35962646.

It gives a round-up of the literature base and runs through the various hypotheses. Here is another (same quality) review – which we already cite – but very recent:

• Bartholomew RE, Baloh RW (March 2024). ""Havana Syndrome": A post mortem". Int J Soc Psychiatry (Review). 70 (2): 402–405. doi:10.1177/00207640231208374. PMC 10913303. PMID 38146090.

This concludes HS is just "moral panic".

I think, at least for WP:Biomedical information, all the primary/old non-WP:MEDRS sources can be removed from the article, and these can do all the heavy lifting for those aspects. We would follow the usual approach of saying "Review X said this, review Y said that", Bon courage (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Asadi-Pooya review looks pretty solid. The Bartholomew article is a "Brief Report", which is apparently supposed to provide a "brief account of innovative work in the field" [3], and it reads somewhat more like a commentary piece rather than a review article, so I'd be less inclined to give that a lot of weight. Don't currently have a view on to what extent other sources should be removed from the article. Tristario (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's categorized by the publisher/Pubmed as a "review" and the journal is solid. Using unreliable sources is bad. Using them when reliable sources are available is double bad. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Here they group Brief Reports together with editorials, it seems to me it may not quite be on the same level as a typical review article, and it doesn't look like a typical one. It's probably usable, I just wouldn't give it a lot of weight. I think you're right that in parts the sourcing on this article isn't great, although there are questions about what does and doesn't count as Biomedical Information, and some of these reports by eg. NASEM and the CIA seem like they should be included. Tristario (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not a lot of weight. This is the kind of discussion we should be having, weighing high quality sources. When the article is re-based on those it may be an idea to consider the weaker ones. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree the second source doesn’t look at the “same level as a typical review article” like the first one. I also wouldn't give it a lot of weight and wouldn’t make any final conclusions based off of it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 05:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Before removing any sources from the article, editors need to establish a consensus on which claims are biomedical and require a higher standard of medical sourcing, and which can be considered as non-biomedical information (WP:NOTBMI), thus allowing the use of standard news sources. Discussions both here [4] and on the fringe noticeboard [5] indicate a consensus that as long as they are correctly attributed, MEDRS may not apply as a restriction of the article's scope. Asadi-Pooya concludes only that Havana syndrome as a neurological disorder with unknown causes, acknowledging the study's own limitations, and calling for further investigation. FailedMusician (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And that is the current state of knowledge, based on a comprehensive literature review in a peer-reviewed review article in a reputable journal. We can't swap in editors' takes on the matter. This is Wikipedia 101. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That is the current state of knowledge in medicine, but the article subject isn't limited to medical aspects, so I would oppose deleting other content and their supporting sources. FailedMusician (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course. For content that doesn't have a biomedical aspect different sourcing standard apply. But the basis should still be secondary. Is there any actual WP:SCHOLARSHIP on this? To best achieve NPOV, the WP:BESTSOURCES need to be the article foundation. Bon courage (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

When the top MEDRS, like the one you provided above acknowledges its own limitations, then MEDRS isn't better than regular RS. FailedMusician (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether to an extent a solution to this is to have a section which sticks to more WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which we present as focusing on the more "medical" side of things, and then have a number of these other non-MEDRS sources, those that aren't outright excluded, in another section(s) which we present as more focused on the social, political and event focused side of things. So then we can include this other pertinent information, but not present it as being medical content.

That would be tricky to do. But to give something more concrete, I wouldn't mind if we deleted most of the "Possible causes of Havana syndrome" section, moved some parts of it to chronology, and then just used that section for MEDRS compliant content. Tristario (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The challenge lies in differentiating the parts of this subject that are clearly biomedical, such as symptoms and treatments, from those that are not, such as the cause. If the alleged cause of some cases was a weapon, as reported by some sources like the recent investigative report by The Insider, then that isn't strictly biomedical. The review article above acknowledging its own limitations in respect to agencies not sharing data, so there may never be MEDRS with definitive conclusions on this topic. FailedMusician (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If you state or imply something "caused" a biomedical effect, that's WP:BMI (to state the obvious). But I don't see what the issue is anyway; we have a recent strong WP:MEDRS giving a comprehensive survey of the various hypotheses. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, if they say it happened they are saying the syndrome is real, that is a medical diagnosis. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Death is considered a biomedical condition. Should your view of WP:BMI then apply to all "Death" sections on the WP? A death can be caused by a bullet. Does that mean an article such as the Assassination of John F. Kennedy should rely only on WP:MEDRS? That sounds like a rather WP:WL way of interpreting the guidelines.

Those parts of the article that trully discuss the biomedical information (symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc) are WP:BMI and should use WP:MEDRS, no one on this talk page seems to disagree with that. But the logic that "if part of the article discusses WP:BMI, then all of the article is WP:BMI" is faulty. This article clearly describes a complex subject, which has biomedical, diplomatic and political sides to it. The word "Syndrome" in its colloquial name is not a reason to strictly reduce the whole discussion/encyclopedic description of a discussion to a biomedical aspect.

Maybe a good idea would be to rework/reword this article to be an article about an event. That looks like a better alternative to this never-ending debate of WP:BMI/WP:NOTBMI and whether the syndrome exists, doesn't exist or is not a medical condition. And it is definitely never-ending because there is no reason to expect that we can get several papers from WP:MEDRS reaching a consensus and a definitive result in the foreseeable future. TinyClayMan (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

How does a comment on the applicability of WP:BMI/WP:MEDRS and the potential rework of the article fall under WP:NOTFORUM? TinyClayMan (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has died of Havana Syndrome. Your speculation of whether death should be treated per WP:MEDRS broadly is not apropos to anything on this article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not saying that someone has. As for the broad implementation of WP:BMI, then that is exactly what I tried to say in relation to the comment by @Bon courage, to which I replied to. I am surprised there is a need to explain the reason for indentation in front of the talk page messages. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And I'm surprised I have to explain that bringing up matters entirely unrelated to article content on an article talk page is WP:NOTFORUM territory. Yet here we are. So let's just close this unproductive line of discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean an article such as the Assassination of John F. Kennedy should rely only on WP:MEDRS? ← it is a common misconception that WP:MEDRS (like WP:BLP) applies at the article level. It applies to content in any article which is WP:BMI (same as WP:BLP applies to any content anywhere about living people). Obviously within the realm of WP:BMI different claims can have different sourcing (read MEDRS, and pay attention to the spinning plate). A claim that blowing your brains out with a gun is fatal does not require strong sourcing; a claim that drug X can prevent colon cancer would require super-strength MEDRS sourcing. WP:ECREE in fact applies everywhere. Any claim about energy weapons and their effects would require strong sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Great job.

“In conclusion, Havana syndrome is a nonspecific neurological illness with an unidentified causative factor(s), an acute phase of auditory-vestibular symptoms and a chronic phase of nonspecific neurobehavioral symptoms. This syndrome should be considered and investigated as a health concern, and not as a political issue.”

from the Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023) review seems pretty solid as a starting point for the medical section of the article. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This is the proper place to start the medical section of the article:

"Using advanced imaging techniques and in-depth clinical assessments, a research team at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found no significant evidence of MRI-detectable brain injury, nor differences in most clinical measures compared to controls, among a group of federal employees who experienced anomalous health incidents (AHIs)."

From NIH DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As already discussed ad nauseam: that’s from a WP:PRIMARY study and can’t be used for WP:BMI according to WP:MEDRS. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 04:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The JAMA, JASON and NASEM studies are of the exact same quality. Do you support cutting them from the article? DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on if they're primary or secondary sources. The NASEM one is a review, not a primary study, but the JAMA one is a primary study. Maybe we can include some primary studies according to WP:MEDPRI, I'm not sure, but starting the medical section with a primary study would definitely be a no go according to WP:MEDRS Tristario (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your reading of MEDRS, but this article is also FRINGE and PARITY comes into play. The idea that HS is even a single thing is predicated on dodgy fMRI PRIMARY studies. So once you let the sketchy claim in the door in violation of MEDRS, you can't then change the standards to keep legitimate SECONDARY domain expert RS refutations of that claim off the page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of Bartholomew RE, Baloh RW Article

Since Bon courage still disagrees let's hear what others think. @DolyaIskrina@Simonm223@Slatersteven@TinyClayMan, and others of course, invited to comment below. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Is Bartholomew [6] of the same quality as Asadi-Pooya [7]? Is Bartholomew a "review"? (edited for clarity) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• No, Not a proper review, I believe @Tristario, @FailedMusician (please confirm below) and me have already expressed our views that the second source reads more like an editorial/commentary rather than a proper review and that it should be given less WP:WEIGHT. I don't believe it can be placed on the same level as the Asadi-Pooya AA (December 2023) review. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• The 2024 Bartholomew review should be given less weight than the other review for reasons I mentioned above. But it should still be included, I think, given the paucity of MEDRS sources we have on this. I'd prefer it if anything that is particularly clearly an opinion was attributed to the authors in some way eg. Bartholomew and Baloh wrote that... --Tristario (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Use both reviews. Relatively equal weighting. The Bartholomew review may be shorter but it is also more recent and I don't think it should be under-weighted. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  3 months of difference is nothing for reviews. They are contemporary. The fact they reach such different conclusions despite being contemporary is problematic. Since most seem to agree Bartholomew et al is not a proper review we should be even more cautious and give it proper WP:WEIGHT. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Bartholomew et al is usable, but as I and others have noted, it does not resemble a proper review article, let alone a systematic one. Although more recent than the Asadi-Pooya review article, we cannot rely on Bartholomew et al to represent a scientific consensus in support of the MPI hypothesis, despite the authors' intentions. Establishing such a consensus requires multiple review articles that convey more definitive conclusions. FailedMusician (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yet you base the claim that the brain RF wave acause can solely be supported by one article, the Asadi-Pooya article. Just so my vote gets counted, I support the inclusion of both articles, on the condition that the Asadi-Pooya is properly noted to be old and overall debunked by new evidence. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Both are good sources per MEDRS. Also, some people might be mistaken about the "governmental agencies". Please check Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations: Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies, the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. "Statements and information". Meaning that something like this would be a good sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's a press release about a primary study (NIH does a lot of press releases like that for studies it does or funds), that MEDRS section is talking more about things like "Guidelines and position statements". A press release like this isn't anything like an official position of the NIH, or official guidance from the NIH. Whether we'd include that study would be according to the guidance at WP:MEDPRI Tristario (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, a press release is worse even as a source than the primary source itself. Bon courage (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Unlike the cited primary studies, this is obviously a WP:SECONDARY, and it is issued by NIH as an organization, even as a news report. Hence, I believe it satisfies the letter of WP:MEDRS. I agree it is less reliable than an official CDC guideline, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please focus the discussion about the NIH studies in the section above #NIH reports deleted?. It seems unlikely that there will be consensus to include them in the 'Possible Causes' section until they are covered by review articles. For now, we should focus on discussing specific edits, including whether Relman's quote can be incorporated in accordance with WP:BALASP. This aligns with the ongoing RFC below, which addresses scenarios like when the primary source is widely reported in major media. FailedMusician (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Also remember that something like PTSD is a perfectly legitimate medical diagnosis/condition. If this is "merely" a psychiatry problem (no brain damage found), it does not disprove the existence of the "syndrome" as the actual medical condition, at least in theory. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Now, citing this NIH report, it says: Forty-one percent of participants in the AHI group, from nearly every geographic area, met the criteria for functional neurological disorders (FNDs), a group of common neurological movement disorders caused by an abnormality in how the brain functions, or had significant somatic symptoms. FNDs can be associated with depression and anxiety, and high stress. Most of the AHI group with FND met specific criteria to enable the diagnosis of persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, also known as PPPD. OK. This is one of several possible explanations to be mentioned on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Both are good sources. There is too much cherry picking going on here in Talk. There is no policy that says you can go "this reads to me like blah-blah-blah". We don't do vibe checks. If it's a relevant expert in the field published in RS it's MEDRS and SECONDARY.DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's not how WP:MEDRS works though. From the "nutshell": Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.. We don't include whatever "experts" say if it is WP:BMI as their opinions are not reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  We don't get to demote a source because we think it, in your words, "reads more like an editorial/commentary". That's your judgement, but not POLICY. Baloh is in RS. It's a review. He's an expert. It counts as MEDRS. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Of course we can demote sources. That's the role of editors here. And several editors have challenged that it is a review. They journal itself does not seem to label it as such. The only mention of a "review" is the one line in the methodology section written by the author saying "Method: A review of the literature." That's it. No other details are offered. That is unacceptable and not how reviews work. If you compare to the other source you can see it clearly presents its methodology in detail including study selection method, sources list, guidelines for inclusion etc. Also: it is labeled as a Review in the title and is published on a Journal that focuses exclusively on review articles. The differences are quite evident. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Let's rephrase: the argument for why to demote this source is insufficient as it mostly hinges on artifacts of the article's brevity. I don't find that a compelling reason to treat it as non-RS. I will concur that, ideally, secondary sources ahould be conducted by people who didn't execute the primary sources but, with only two reviews to draw from, I fear that the impact to neutrality would be far greater excluding this source than if we were to include it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  This definitely goes beyond the "article's brevity". This is simply not a review and the journal does not call it as such. The authors mostly cite their own studies and simply appear to support their own conclusions without discussing other viewpoints. Also: they include significantly less sources than the other review despite being published later (32 sources cited in the first review vs. 20 sources cited in this article). Why did they discard the other evidence? They didn't provide any reasoning for it since no methodology is indicated. Those are major red flags that force us to conclude that this article is of lower quality per WP:MEDASSESS. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• No. Very weak yes. (tl;dr: Asadi-Pooya, 2022 should get more WP:WEIGHT than Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023) The Asadi-Pooya, 2022 report is indeed a neutral review article that summarizes the existing research, with careful formulation of the parts that are not part of an established consensus by the scientific community. Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 is different: its general tone is polemic and it obviously works towards reinforcing its' authors previous claims/opinions (from their previous publications) – for one, the "Aims" section from the publication already contains the expected conclusion. The two also differ in the choice of articles for the review: the Asadi-Pooya "Methods" section clearly describes why the studies were chosen (basically, all existing medical studies which were relevant and were found based on searched words). In comparison, the Bartholomew & Baloh review's choice of sources is unclear and unexhaustive. Their review generally follows a formula "Cite a single claim from a source and then debunk it with another single claim" with the debunking claim sometimes coming from the authors, and not another source (even when the claim lies outside the area of expertise for Bartholomew, i.e. medical sociology, and Baloh, i.e. neurology). In addition to studies it also cites a combination of press statements, media publications and a single authors' personal communication source, which are mostly used by the authors to address common misperceptions about MPI – and that part of the publication is not a review of primary medical sources at all.

While parts of B&B, 2023 do fit the WP:MEDDEF for being a WP:SECONDARY, it also contains the authors' personal opinion and theorisation on the subject which should be carefully cited taking in account WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and the authors' area of expertise. So I think that Bartholomew & Baloh, 2023 can be used on the article, but it should be given much less WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022. TinyClayMan (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

100% agree, great rundown. I think your "very weak yes" equals my view when I say "Not a proper review". The conclusion is the same: "it should be given much less WP:WEIGHT than Asadi-Pooya, 2022". Maybe you should clear that up so as to make it explicit where you stand to someone reading this quickly. I think we have a pretty strong consensus at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Added in bold in front.TinyClayMan (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no strong consensus here. TinyClayMan is literally tone policing. We don't get to do that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

TinyClayMan correctly checked the sources cited by the paper. And found them lacking. Which is pretty clear if one compares it to the other proper review. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Asadi-Pooya article relies on sources that have since been debunked/superceded, such as the NIH report saying it was likely RF wave weapons, which they have rolled back on saying there is no damage to syndrome "sufferers" brains, and goes against the consensus of the entire intelligence community. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

“Five of the agencies said foreign involvement was “very unlikely”, one found it “unlikely”, and the seventh declined to offer an opinion. But most noted their assessments were moderate to low confidence given the available evidence.” https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/havana-syndrome-linked-to-russian-unit-media-investigation-suggests

The US intelligence community doesn’t really know much yet and new information is emerging. So not enough to discard such a strong WP:MEDRS review IMHO. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a strong MEDRS review as the claim that Radio Frequency was the cause comes SOLELY from a single citation to a NASEM report to a Senate standing committee, which at this point is four years old. And yes, the consensus of the intelligence community, as you just stated, is that it is very unlikely. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with that review you can publish your own review in a peer reviewed journal. Then we can cite it. Until then you are doing original research WP:OR which is not allowed on Wikipedia. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not the one advocating for inclusion, also see WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDDATE. I am not adding OR to articles, therefore it is not WP:OR. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately consensus is against you so give it a rest. You are the only one proposing to ignore the Asadi-Pooya review. There is no doubt that it is a review of high quality that conforms to WP:MEDRS and it is included in the article. The only "review" in doubt is the Bartholomew review which most editors in this discussion believe is of lesser quality. Express your view on that if you wish in your own comment articulating your thoughts but let's reduce the non constructive discussions or this talk page will explode. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Its already mentioned in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah idk why the user is so pressed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, the point of this discussion is what weight to give to the Bartholomew's article and if it is a proper "review". I'll maybe clarify the question above. Let's keep the discussion orderly. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I just noticed that Bartholomew is clearly marked as a "Brief Report" by the publishing journal [8]. Here is their description of what Brief Reports are: [9]. I think that is a clear and incontrovertible indication it should not be treated as a review and definitely not given the same weight as Asadi-Pooya. Case closed? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is still a review of the literature, even if it is 'brief'. That's not a 'clear and incontrovertible indication' of anything. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is getting a little bit tedious. Reviews aren't reviews if they don't support specific POVs seems to be the gist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  The journal states clearly it is a "Brief report". If it were a literature review it would have an appropriate structure and it would be marked as a "Review article" such as here. Brief reports are absolutely not literature reviews (it absolutely does not mean "brief review") and are at the bottom of WP:MEDASSESS scale with "Case-Controlled Studies/Case Series/Reports" instead of a the top. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  We have literally already discussed this, see LITERALLY the first response to bon courage in this very thread. There is no way you JUST noticed this as you participated in this thread. You are just WP:BLUDGEONing by posting this again. We get it, you don't think it counts. Others think the Bartholomew review is still a review of the literature on the topic, albeit brief, yet it is still a review. Yet you conclusively say "case closed' - the article is also subjected to a double blind peer review so I am only more confident that it should be included as a reliable source. What levels of peer review were the Asadi-Pooya article subjected to?

  This is getting exhausting. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  A 'Brief report' is not mutually exclusive with being a literature review. One way we can tell this is a literature review is by this text, quoted from the source at issue: Method: A review of the literature. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Seems I missed a similar comment above. Even more surprised we are still discussing about this. According to the publisher: Editorials and Brief Reports. Editorials are generally invited by the Editor and reflect on topics of current controversy or to serve as introductions to themed editions of the journal. Brief reports will be up to 1,000 words in length and provide a brief account of innovative work in the field. and they are clearly separate from Review Articles will, in a scholarly fashion, summarise an important area of the literature. [10]. This discussion should have been over a long time ago. Calling this article a review is demonstrably false. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  We're concerned with what sources actually are (in this case as demonstrated by a direct quotation), not with categories that do not actually mean what you seem to think they mean. Publisher categories don't actually have any bearing on Wikipedia or its policy requirements. Also, please stop trying to shut down discussions - we get that you disagree, but that you disagree does not mean that discussions will simply end and endorse your personal view of the matter. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  They have a bearing if their status as a review article is being challenged. This is clearly not a normal review article. FailedMusician (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  It reviews and summarizes academic literature - it is a review article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  It calls itself a review, but otherwise it is disputed if we can call it that. FailedMusician (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Uhhhhh do you think the article doesn't review and summarize academic literature? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nope. And several (most?) other editors agree. Per WP:ONUS there needs to be stronger consensus to keep this in the article while contradicting a strong WP:MEDRS source. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of publications by James C. Lin

In the #Adding the new investigative report? talk page section primary works by James C. Lin describing the effects caused by exposure to microwave and RF radiation were brought up earlier this month (and were subsequently forgotten in the following discussions). His statement, given to Guardian, is also cited on the article page.

There is a review article by him on the related subject

• James C Lin; Zhangwei Wang (June 2007). "Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds". Health Physics (Review). 92 (6): 621–628. doi:10.1097/01.HP.0000250644.84530.e2. PMID 17495664.

and also a monograph, part of which discusses Havana syndrome directly (in the section 10.2)

• C. Lin, James (August 19, 2021). Auditory Effects of Microwave Radiation. Springer Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64544-1. ISBN 978-3-030-64544-1.

The author's level of expertise on the subject is clear from the "About the author" section on the monograph's page. There is a problem with accessing these sources as they are behind a paywall (leaving only the chapters' and the article's abstracts), but they might be available through WP:LIBRARY (definitely available through shadow libraries). I think that these sources can be used for the section of the article devoted to potential causes. TinyClayMan (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. He is a top expert on the subject. Are they accessible via Wikipedia library? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't think so. I could get electronic copies from the uni library though, but are we sure they are the first one is even due for this article? Wouldn't they it need to mention Havana syndrome directly (which the first one couldn't possibly)? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree only the second one is relevant here. I managed to read some of it through google books using the search and preview feature. Here are some selected quotes: "Many have come to believe that the microwave auditory effect — induced by a targeted beam of high peak-power pulsed microwave radiation — may be the most likely scientific explanation for the sonic attack [Best, 2017; Hambling, 2017; Hignett, 2017; Broad, 2018; Deng, 2018]. Of course, until the truth is revealed, this specific matter will remain somewhat of a mystery." and "It is not clear whether a weapon that covertly uses sonic energy to injure people exists today." "...the required technology is mature and for the most part, commercially available or readily adaptable from existing microwave radar systems." {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think we should use this source. Something published by Springer and written by an expert (formerly a professor in "bioengineering" as well as "physiology and biophysics") has to meet the threshold for inclusion, and feel free to reach out if you want a pdf-copy. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

We still need to stick to MEDRS even for experts. @Gtoffoletto did you mention a secondary source among those? Could you highlight that one? Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

according to WP:MEDRS:Ideal sources for biomedical information include: … academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; so this is a very strong source. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Great. If Lin is MEDRS in your book than so too is Repacholi.

"Factors that decrease the likelihood that the sounds perceived by embassy staff were due microwave hearing include: * Huge peak and average microwave power densities would be needed to elicit the sensation of "a loud sound". This would require large microwave generating equipment, such as military radars used close to the target. * Embassy staff did not report any thermal sensation or feeling of warmth that results from exposure to high power microwaves. * There were no reports of electromagnetic interference that would certainly result from exposure to high power microwaves. * The reported directional nature of the sound does not fit the description of the microwave hearing effect. Finally it would be technically challenging to produce RF equipment that could produce loud sounds. The committee produced no convincing evidence that pulsed RF at high or low power can produce the symptoms reported by US embassy personnel in Havana and China. Mass psychogenic illness and related psychological mechanisms remain a plausible explanation for the symptoms."[11]https://www.jeic-emf.jp/english/assets/files/pdf/whats_new/20201220RRG_Public(ENG).pdf

And Foster, Garrett, and Ziskin: "We conclude that acoustic waves induced in the brain at the “reasonable upper limit” exposures described by Dagro et al. are likely to fall short of thresholds for damaging the brain, although they conceivably could produce unpleasant audiovestibular disturbances and/or auditory responses, depending on the RF pulse duration and repetition rate. In any event, the capabilities of high-powered microwave sources remain shrouded in classified research programs and thresholds for adverse effects are poorly defined. There are easier ways to harass or harm an adversary and using directed energy weapons against people might be ill-advised for a variety of other reasons as well."[12]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733248/

DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are WP:PRIMARY studies. Not academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers. So no, those are not good WP:MEDRS sources. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In what respect would they be primary? I'm not following here. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This source [13] is a “non-evidence-based expert opinion” which WP:MEDRS explicitly indicates as a primary source of “lower” level.

This source [14] is a reply to a Consensus Study Report by the NASEM (a strong WP:MEDRS source) that was not published in a peer review journal? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 28 April 2024

−

{{pp-dispute|small=yes}} {{multiple issues |1= {{primary sources|date=April 2024}} {{pov|date=April 2024}} }} {{Short description|Medical symptoms of unknown origin, reported primarily by overseas government workers}} {{Use mdy dates|date=March 2023}} {{Use American English|date=April 2018}}

+

{{Short description|Medical symptoms of unknown origin, reported primarily by overseas government workers}} {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} {{multiple issues |1= {{primary sources|date=April 2024}} {{pov|date=April 2024}} }} {{Use mdy dates|date=March 2023}} {{Use American English|date=April 2018}}

per MOS:ORDER. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)