Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 3

Actual Cause Conspiracy nonsense

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)

This is one of these well-known secrets that loads of people know but only brave keyboard warriors will expose. Thanks for the laugh Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Cricket sounds as a cause.

Someone with greater expertise than I should explain how the cricket sounds could cause these major medical problems. Dynzmoar (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Most if not all of the proposed explanations involve speculation. We don't mention the way in which the cricket noises are supposed to have caused the medical problems. Presumably the most likely mechanism is through mass hysteria. The workers did not know at the time that the sounds they were hearing were crickets. The workers were placed in an environment which their government described as hostile. The combination of a stressful environment, sickness of fellow workers and unfamiliar and unsettling sounds may have created an atmosphere that led to mass hysteria. It is speculation, but so is most of this article. Burrobert (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The cricket sounds were in reference to a few specific cases only. 79.70.163.251 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

HVAC Induced Infrasound Sickness

A new theory about the causes of Havana Syndrome among employees of US embassies, makes a direct accusation against the US government that it is trying to cover up Occupational hazard associated with Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning which is installed in US embassies.

"US HAVC system, CAN NOT maintain a stable indoor air pressure, instead, it creates rapidly pulsating air pressure variations, which are usually in the infrasound range, a frequency below the lower limit of human audibility (generally under 20 Hz)."

Source is Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/HavanaSyndrome/comments/op8n6j/the_truth_about_havana_syndrome_or_how_us/

P.s. Let's question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rdp060707 why he delete this even from Talking page? Did you have real moderators here? I want to report this person for vandalism. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Rdp060707 didn't delete your talk page post, I did. Reddit is not a reliable source, and since the reddit forum you keep linking to was created today and has no members and no content, it seems likely that you're here to promote it (and your own conspiracy theories). Geogene (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If you delete it, I will restore it again, because this is a Talk Page. And this link is already send to thousands of US embassy staff. Expect it to explode in the media in the next few days. I don't hope 3 people that see it here, to make some differences. But your attempt to delete it even in Talk Page, speak clearly what wiki rats you are here. Wikipedia needs a purge of guys like you and Rdp060707.79.100.140.118 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I will revert you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"A 1996 study published in Indoor and Built Environment examined low frequency noise of 7 Hz in several offices. Many occupants experienced the following symptoms as a result of exposure to the noise: fatigue, headache, nausea, concentration difficulties, disorientation, seasickness, digestive disorders, cough, vision problems, and dizziness. This study demonstrated that low frequency noise from the ventilation system was amplified in the tightly sealed rooms and that repeated or long-term exposure to the sound triggered a number of physical symptoms." https://sandischwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/EM_Magazine_final_printed_article.pdf 79.100.140.118 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

YOu are aware of when this incident happened?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There has to be a reliable source that claims this causes Havana Syndrome, otherwise it's original research. Obviously no study from 1996 is going to do that. Geogene (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Theories regarding cause" - are just that, theories. Sick building syndrome is nothing new, and when symptoms that are connected with Havana Syndrome are exactly the same as Infrasound Sickness ones - this should be mentioned in the main article. Or you want to change and original Sick building syndrome wiki article. Go on... "Sick building causes are frequently pinned down to flaws in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems." start delete what you don't like in it. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that Havana Syndrome is caused by infrasound? Geogene (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that say the symptoms are the same?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"symptoms such as a perceived loud noise, ear pain, intense head pressure or vibration, dizziness, visual problems, and cognitive difficulties, and many still continue to experience these or other health problems" https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2020/12/new-report-assesses-illnesses-among-us-government-personnel-and-their-families-at-overseas-embassies What exactly you want, Dictionary?! The symptoms are the same. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nom they are similar, we need a source saying they are the same. A cold has the same symptoms as the flu, they are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope you understand what nonsense you're talking about. Cold, flu... you just want some yellow media to recite what is written in the reddit post so it to become 'reliable' source. Don't worry, in a few days it will happen. 79.100.140.118 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is why we do not allow wp:or as I think they have similar symptoms, such as "cough", "sore throat", "stuffy and runny nose" are symptoms of both Flu and the cold. So yes we need some "yellow media" and not a credit post to say it. On your talk page you have been asked to read our policies. Please do so.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

When (and if) it happens we might be able to include this. It depends on how it is covered.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

So I have question to you. Tomorrow or other day when the media like "The Wall Street Journal" start talking about the connection between Havana Syndrome and HVAC Induced Infrasound Sickness - entirely because I have shown this connection to them - whom you will quote in main Havana Syndrome page, the original post in Reddit where it all started OR experts names WSJ used to backup this connection? As you yourself said it, there are not still articles talking about a direct link between Havana Syndrome and HVAC except this Reddit post, so I can even show you how WSJ are informed by me for this subject. But you will quote them not the source :-) Don't you think this will be a form of plagiarism?! Let's see what will happened.79.100.140.118 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been told this already, we go by what wp:rs say. It is also unlikely they will not mention the origin of this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source on scientific subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WSJ is fine for science. They often report on global warming accurately. They accurately reported on Elizabeth Holmes and Therenos. The Opinion pages have the science denial. They are almost like separate papers. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Wall_Street_Journal. -- GreenC 20:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"Often" is not enough to be "reliable". Broken clocks regularly show the right time, twice a day even! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Y'all, you gotta cut this out. The HVAC lobby is going to find you ;-) 100.15.224.222 (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Misleading "brain injury" claims in the introduction.

Paragraph 3 in the introduction has the following statement: "Studies of the affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2018, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause of the injuries.[15][16]" The "found evidence...of brain injury" seems to have come from the NYT article and is a misinterpretation of the actual JAMA report. The JAMA report intentionally makes no conclusion about brain injury/trauma/alteration, but notes a difference in certain medical imaging results between patients and a control group. The report also notes explicitly that the differences did not correlate with known patterns of brain trauma, and that there were issues with control groups and initial patient data quality.

I'd prefer to drop the mention from the intro all together (along with the microwave weapons conclusion), but it's a key part of the story, so I propose changing it to something that follows the conclusion more accurately e.g.: "A 2018 retrospective study published in the medical journal JAMA found differences in neuroimaging results of affected diplomats in Cuba, but concluded that 'clinical relevance of these differences is uncertain.'"

Anyone have any input on this? 61.245.132.16 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

It would be worth discussing whether the statements about the brain injuries are subject to WP:MEDRS. If so, we should not use the New York Times as a source for the study and instead use the appropriate medical source. The policy regarding medical content in any Wikipedia article states:

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials.

Burrobert (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Burrobert: I have just come to the article myself and concluded much the same thing, so I went ahead and made some changes. I quoted as directly as possible from the JAMA article's conclusion as well as from the NYT piece. I have also made a couple of small changes for NPOV in the same paragraph (e.g., paragraph states clearly that there is no expert consensus on the cause of the syndrome, then quotes at length from two hypotheses on the cause, both of which support the microwave weapon theory. I think some trimming might be merited here. If there truly is no expert consensus, then why afford so much weight to the theory that the syndrome is caused by hostile use of RF waves? (or similar). Along these lines I think the wording in the "causes" box is currently not NPOV, so I'll take a look at that, and then sit back a couple of days and give others time to look over my changes. I am not sure about MEDRS, but certainly, the previous content that baldy stated "some sort of brain injury had occurred" was (at the very best) badly misrepresenting the cited study from JAMA. Please take a look at my changes and let me know what you think. Cheers Anotheranothername (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does it give so much attention to microwaves? Because that's currently the dominant theory among experts. Geogene (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Geogene: If there is "no expert consensus" on the cause of the "differences" found by eg the JAMA study then how can there be a "dominant theory" that the cause is microwaves? Is there, or is there not, expert consensus on the cause? Expert consensus I assume here would be from experts on brains and neurology specifically.

@Neutrality: I am unhappy with the reason you gave in the edit summary for my changes to the lead. I am not the only editor here who feels the current "brain injury" content is misrepresenting both the NYT piece and the JAMA study's conclusions, which should be stated clearly for our readers. Your complaints that my changes are "not good style" do not trump WP:NPOV. If you believe it is unnecessary to quote at length from the JAMA study's conclusions, then please work with me on developing content that reflects those conclusions accurately without misrepresenting them. For anyone on this talk page following along, here is the quote from the JAMA study's conclusion:

Among US government personnel in Havana, Cuba, with potential directional phenomena exposure, compared with healthy controls, advanced brain MRI techniques revealed significant neuroimaging differences in whole brain white matter volume, regional gray and white matter volume, cerebellar tissue microstructural integrity, and functional connectivity in the auditory and visuospatial subnetworks but not in the executive control subnetwork. The clinical importance of these differences is uncertain and may require further study.

NYT:

Now, researchers are reporting results from the first brain-imaging studies of 40 of those diplomats, who were carefully examined by neurologists after returning home from Cuba. The study, appearing on Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA, concludes that the diplomats experienced some kind of brain trauma. But the nature and cause of that trauma were not clear, as it did not resemble the signature of more familiar brain injuries such as repeated concussions or exposure to battlefield blasts.

The article text that was just reinstated by User:Neutrality, with no better reason for removing my changes than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT:

A study of affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2018, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause of the injuries.

"Brain injury" is a vast oversimplification. The NYT text says "they had brain trauma but no one knows what kind or what caused it". The JAMA text says the clinical importance of these differences is uncertain. We must follow NPOV and write what the most authoritative source writes. Anotheranothername (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this content. Please don't restore absent consensus (which has not been achieved here); see WP:ONUS. The quote is far too long, and undue weight for the lead, and it is poor style to do a long, needless quote in the lead.

As for the cause, the lead section makes clear that the cause hasn't been definitively established.

As for brain injury - the sources (both the JAMA study and the NYT piece summarizing it) directly support the statement that the study showed that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury. That's directly supported. It's not "misleading" nor is it an "oversimplification" or "misrepresentation." Obviously, of course, the study said that further research needs to be done. But that doesn't mean that stating the baseline fact is a "vast oversimplification." If the text in the lead said that the brain injury had some sort of specific clinical importance, then I would agree that such a statement would be at odds with the JAMA report. But the lead doesn't say that.

Addendum: As a compromise, I would be fine with something like: "A neuroimaging study of affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2019, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause or clinical importance of the injuries." Neutrality^talk 03:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality: "Brain injury", to me, has clinical importance: brain injury generally has measurable outcome(s) for the patient suffering it. That is the root of my issue with the content we're discussing here, haha... Can you please expand on this notion of "brain injury without clinical importance"? Is there such a thing as brain injury without clinical importance? If clinical importance is similar to clinical significance, then the idea that the diplomats have brain injuries but that the clinical importance of the injuries is unclear just... sounds like the injuries either aren't a big deal or can't really be definitively proven to exist. Again: the JAMA study as I understand it merely identifies differences between the diplomats' brains and the brains of healthy controls (with a long list of caveats in the limitations section). Thanks for the fast and insightful replies so far. Cheers Anotheranothername (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know specifically what was meant by "clinical relevance"/"clinical importance" (I would not assume it means the same as "clinical significance"). But as to the main point, I think "brain injury" is a perfectly acceptable summation of the study language. Is not a difference "in whole brain white matter volume, regional gray and white matter volume, cerebellar tissue microstructural integrity, and functional connectivity in the auditory" as compared to "healthy controls" an injury? We need not determine for ourselves: let's look at how others have summarized the study findings for a lay audience (our core job here when crafting the lead section). The NYTimes piece said "the diplomats experienced some kind of brain trauma." And the study authors themselves, in summarizing their findings (see Penn Medicine release, quoting lead study author), used the same "brain injury" terms ("It's hard to tell where the problem started; the brain differences observed could be an immediate effect of the brain injury, or it could a compensatory effect of the recovery process" (emphasis added)). In the body of the article, we can be as precise as possible; in the lead section, when writing for a lay audience (most readers are not going to be neurologists), we can and should use the same shorthand that the experts use. Neutrality^talk 04:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. Rather than confuse our lay readers (which apparently includes both you and I) by telling them that the diplomats had brain injuries but that the injuries were "without clinical importance", how about this: we follow more directly the NYT article's wording that the nature and cause of that trauma were not clear. Though I still have a problem with stating "brain injury" so bluntly, I can't deny your points about secondary coverage in RS. How about this? "A neuroimaging study of affected diplomats in Cuba, published in the medical journal JAMA in 2019, found evidence that the diplomats experienced some form of brain injury, but did not determine the cause or the specific character of the trauma." <smile> Anotheranothername (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m OK with that compromise wording. Thanks for the collaboration. Neutrality^talk 04:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this compromise fixes my initial concern here, the terms "brain injury" and "trauma" both imply that the differences in image analysis show some kind of damage or change. The study does not claim that those differences are evidence of damage, they're just differences from a control group.

As an analogy, if we have two pairs of curtains, one blue and one white, we can observe the two and see that they're different, but from that information alone we can't know for how long or why. It's possible they were stained, or we might assume that the blue pair had been dyed in the factory? But they may as well have been made from blue thread from the start. In the same way, due to the problems with control groups the use of clinical data, and the lack of correlation to known modes of trauma we can't conclude that the differences show trauma or injury, and we can't even really say how long the differences may have been present.

This is why the study itself explicitly doesn't claim trauma or injury, and just concludes that there are imaging differences when one specific analytic technique was applied. I don't think it's fair to justify that terminology based on informal quotes. I'm trying to avoid original research here, and I'd prefer a third-party formal medical review that we could cite, but all we have at the moment is the study itself, the NYT article, and a press-release announcing the study. AFAIK none of these sources satisfy WP:MEDRS.

My main issue is that having reference to "brain injury" and "trauma" in the lede implies more than what the study itself is willing to conclude. I'm happy to leave reference to the actual "imaging differences" in the intro, but I think we should shift the interpretation into the body of the article with equal weight to other academic discussion of the results, e.g. the other doctor cited in the NYT piece. 61.245.132.16 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Crickets

BuzzFeed News has published an article about a scientific report to which it has obtained access:

• "A declassified State Department report obtained by BuzzFeed News dismissed the theory that microwave weapons are behind the mysterious neurological injuries in diplomats worldwide".
• "Originally classified as “secret,” the report concluded that the sounds accompanying at least eight of the original 21 Havana syndrome incidents were “most likely” caused by insects. That same scientific review also judged it “highly unlikely” that microwaves or ultrasound beams ... were involved in the incidents.
• Interestingly, on 28 September, the US House of Representatives passed a “Havana Act” bill compensating CIA and State Department personnel affected by incidents such as these.
• "Meanwhile, just this month, the Cuban Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that mass psychology is the best explanation for the incidents".

Burrobert (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Psychogenic origin (again)

It looks like the psychogenic origin hypothesis has been removed from the intro again. I haven't (yet) scoured the history to see who removed it and when, but it should definitely be restored.

A couple other points:

1) Like someone else alluded to in the discussion above, if it were pretty much anyone other than US State Department and CIA officials making these allegations, they wouldn't be taken seriously at all...The very label "tinfoil hat" (to describe baseless conspiracy nonsense) comes from people covering their heads in foil to protect their brains from energy weapons, so it's frankly astonishing that such tinfoil hatery is even seriously considered here, let alone presented as presumed accurate.

2) Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware, after all these years of speculation, US counterintelligence hasn't been able to find any evidence of such alleged weapons being used, or even the existence of said weapons. I think this should be made clear to readers, as it casts significant (further) doubt on the reality of these supposed attacks. -2003:CA:8722:3335:781B:AC2F:D835:C4E (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This hypothesis (which is a minority view) is adequately addressed in the body of the article. The lead section properly discusses the state of what is known and not known about the events. I don't see any issue here. Neutrality^talk 19:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutrality - On what basis here do you claim that skepticism of the microwave hypothesis is "a minority view"? A 2018 report from the JASON (advisory group), commissioned by the US State Department and recently released following an FOI request from BuzzFeed News, concludes that microwave or other such energy weapons are highly unlikely, that the sound was caused by crickets, and that the symptoms are most likely psychogenic in nature: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/havana-syndrome-jason-crickets This was originally reported by Buzz Feed News, and has since been widely reported by other mainstream news outlets.

So given that the JASON Group is highly respected and that their report was commissioned by the US government, there's no reason to consider their conclusions in any way fringe or marginal in nature....Yet excluding any mention of crickets or psychogenic origin from the (rather long 4 paragraph) lead, gives the impression that it somehow is, so this is a pretty clearcut violation of NPOV. Hence I've flagged the article as such.

Moreover, I would argue that the microwave weapons hypothesis, being a rather extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence. Crickets and headaches brought on by stress/paranoia are far more mundane explanations, with much lower proof thresholds. -2003:CA:8722:3358:84F0:FDE5:EAF4:A6BF (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

IP, personnel continuing to be disabled after returning home from the initial stressful environment and retiring from government work would seem to be fairly extraordinary evidence. Mass hysterias tend to burn themselves out after a month or so. This has been going on for five years now. As for NPOV, you've seized on one report that you happen to like (JASON) and you seem to be trying to exclude the National Academies report, which got more coverage. And the microwave hypothesis still seems to be getting more attention from reliable sources, which makes it the dominant theory. (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Geogene, no that's not really extraordinary evidence, as any number of things can cause that. PTSD, for example, is often long lasting, and if one believes that the sound of crickets is a microwave weapon frying one's brain then that could be quite traumatic! If microwave weapons are the cause, and it's been going on for years, then why haven't US counterintelligence been able to find any direct evidence of such weapons? Why haven't sensors been able to pick up any such energy signals? And if the Russians (or whoever) is deploying these weapons against US CIA and State Department officials at multiple locations in countries around the world, why hasn't the US Intelligence Community ever been able to intercept or otherwise document the existence of such weapons?....These claims are quite extraordinary, and like I said, frankly tin foil hat type stuff (quite literally!), yet there's been no extraordinary evidence to support them....And as far as the NAS report goes - no, I'm not trying to exclude that report - this is a straw man. I'm simply saying that there's no good reason that the findings of the JASON Group report should be completely excluded from the article's lead, suggesting that they're somehow marginal or "fringe" in nature. Doing so does violate NPOV, and your removal of the template while this is still being actively debated here was inappropriate, so I'm restoring it. -2003:CA:8722:33A2:84F0:FDE5:EAF4:A6BF (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But we're not talking about PTSD, we are talking about mass hysteria. If you're allowed to invoke any other mental illness you wish in addition to mass hysteria, then mass hysteria could potentially "explain" any evidence you're faced with, which makes it non-falsifiable (and not science). So I think it might be best if, instead of trying to solve the mystery here, we focus on which hypothesis is currently getting the most attention from reliable sourcing. Geogene (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The JASON report was about a handful of audio recordings from Havana. It does not address the vast majority of cases. It is far less relevant than the JAMA report or the National Academics of science report, both of which were more systemic. Neutrality^talk 03:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And now there is a new article here bolstering the psychogenic hypothesis: "Havana Syndrome Hysteria and the Great Wild Goose Chase - Classified documents reveal skepticism of foreign actors & bolster the role of psychogenic illness." It references a US gov't document here, which apparently admits that "The contents of a U.S. Government investigation into “Havana Syndrome” released under the Freedom of Information Act, concluded that mass psychogenic illness likely played a major role." In my opinion, there needs to be much more of this POV in the article, including in the lead which ignores it totally. BTW, this is the article's conclusion: "This episode can be summed up in an old adage: “Talk of the devil and he is bound to appear.” Havana Syndrome is a witch scare dressed up in a different cultural guise, making it more palatable for modern acceptance. Instead of witches, it is foreign agents who are being accused of nefarious deeds. A more appropriate label for what has transpired would be “Havana Syndrome Delusion” — the unsubstantiated belief, in the wake of persistent evidence to the contrary, that diplomats are being targeted with an energy weapon. It is a social panic that has been aided by sensational journalism, dubious science, social media conspiracy theories, and government bureaucracy." RobP (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is another Skeptic Movement source that seems to function like a religion, in that a few people are superfans, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't have much weight. I also think the implication that "nefarious deeds" aren't occasionally being done by "foreign agents" is in and of itself naive enough to discredit the source. Geogene (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove psychogenic origin and its related speculation

At this point, given the facts that:

     1) These events have occurred to hundreds of people, many of whom do not work together
     2) These events have occurred on multiple continents
     3) It has also occurred to Canadian foreign service members
     4) There is direct physical evidence of traumatic brain injury in many of these patients and, 
     5) Most important, there is nothing but pure speculation driving the psychogenic illness origin

While it is understandable because it plays to human biases, it is irresponsible and lacks objectivity to continue to add this reference, which is just some authors who proposed some speculations and drove a lot of profitable, clickable links to their books. It is also damaging, because it lends credibility to this outrageous and insulting idea that anything that cannot be explained can be speculated to involve a psychogenic origin. These speculations are why the ambassadors and agents had to get lawyers and eventually lobby their organizations to take these events seriously, and why they now are legally forced to compensate these injuries as workplace injuries. Speculations of psychogenic illness merely slowed down the objective process by which these events were eventually taken seriously as some sort of poorly understood directional weapon or some other related plausible origin, like as the side-effect of a high-powered surveillance device. It is now clear that they represent some sort of physical phenomenon, and of course while many origins are still plausible they have at least some evidence. No origin theory in this section without actual evidence (and speculation by any person of any profession is still not evidence) should not be allowed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No, we go with what RS say. So if RS speculates this was a cause we repeat it. Nor is it clear it was some type of weapon, after all satanic ritual abuse occurred involving These events have occurred to hundreds of people, many of whom do not work together and occurred on multiple continents.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse? Can we please delete this joker's comment? I welcome real conversation on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk • contribs)

No, as I am illustrating a point, we do not use our own wp:or (and how your own OR can also be applied to other situations) as we can all find explanations that fit the facts. The point is that much of your argument above is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously not OR, these are well-known, published facts, not an analysis or integration of them into something new. These facts directly contradict even the plausibility of some nebulous, vague psychogenic illness causing it. Many of which are cited in the WP page text. You have a personal issue with me. Get over it and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion you are drawing is (which was the point of my satanic panic comment) in the modern (internet) agree close proximity is not needed for psychogenic origin, only access to the same information, just as in a moral panic. And I have no personal issue with you, do not make this personal.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget to assume good faith here. This looks like a purely content-based dispute. I don't see any evidence of this being personal. JellyMan9001 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic at all, or the nonsense word salad you are saying with moral panics or satanic rituals. I am precisely drawing no conclusion - and insisting that an origin theory with no basis whatsoever should not be included merely because someone proposed it. This allows literally any idea to carry the same weight as psychogenic origin, as if "MAYBE" trolls and ogres are the origin. It is just as reasonable. The other sections have actual evidence associated with them. That's the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.217.238 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

IP - indent comments with a ":" or "::" for double etc.. don't lead with spaces or tabs otherwise it causes the page formatting to be messed up. Sign comments at the end with four tilde like ~~~~. -- GreenC 18:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe what Slatersteven is trying to do is use moral panics as an example of how phenomena of psychogenic origin can spread through the internet. JellyMan9001 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am doing, and yes the IP is drawing a conclusion, they are concluding a theory is wrong based upon their reading of the facts.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Again, stop putting words in my mouth and making straw man arguments. I do not have to repeat myself, and I clearly explained already that I am drawing no conclusion, and my problem is with how this conclusion is drawn prematurely, so your comments are a little cringe. This is not a theory, because it has no evidence, and is equivalent with literally any speculation, including demons and ogres. It purely speculation, and this is why it should be removed. Every other listed origin theory has evidence. Again, you will have to respond to what I actually say, not what you wish it to be.--67.80.217.238 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You actually have a partially valid point. We can't exclude it entirely because reliable sources do discuss it and our job at Wikipedia is not report the truth, but to report what reliable sources say. However there is a thing called WP:WEIGHT where fringe (see WP:FRINGE) or minor theories should not be given too much attention. This theory currently has more WEIGHT than any other, including microwaves. It should be reduced and summarized. -- GreenC 18:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Microwave" 337 words "Psychogenic origin" 367 words (which includes the refutation of the theory (two whole paragraphs)). Not a huge difference. Most of the rest are rather more implausible and fringe than Psychogenic origin.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Reduceing the refutation of "Psychogenic origin" to one line (as it is with "Microwave") would reduce it's size by half.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of psychogenic are ripe for summarizing. Thought the first two paragraphs were OK. -- GreenC 18:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The third and fourth paragraphs are talking about the same report. This can be reduced to one paragraph.

The 2020 National Academies report determined that psychological issues were not the likely cause of the injuries. It 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”. In its assessment of potential social and psychological causes, the committee noted the possibility of stress-based psychological responses, and that these were more likely to be triggered by potential threats attributed to human sources than other stressors. It concluded that these could not have caused the acute "audio-vestibular" symptoms some patients experienced, such as sudden unexplained sounds. However, the scope of the provided data limited the committee's ability to investigate psychological and social factors.

Burrobert (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No (to the OP). Your point #5 is founded on the fallacy that psychogenic illness does not cause brain damage. This is wrong (a fact that was kept from the NAS panel and is being kept out of this article). What we have is a lot of people claiming that a lot of possible symptoms are part of a phenomenon with no known origin and a lot of speculation as to what it might be. To decide now that microwave is the only credible explanation is OR that is not supported by sources or WP:MEDRS. Psychogenic is one of many credible alternative causes. All the recent reports about JASON talk about it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was the previous substantial editor of this section I believe, and agree it needed to be summarised further (I found it difficult at the time!), but it should be clear from the text of MPI section that the NAS does not 'refute' it, it is unable to establish for or against it due to the omission of patient level and epidemiological data. To quote directly, "the committee was not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause". I think your edit captures some of the issues with the section as I had rendered it, though I also think (not particularly with your edits) that there are a few issues. The first is the opening sentence, which references a sentence in an article stating 'the overall analysis appeared to show MPI was not the likely cause'. I don't think the paraphrasing of this article is an accurate representation of the report, and also in itself has a strangely loaded phrasing ('was not able to establish MPI as a likely cause' for example would be more accurate). Further, the central section is unnecessarily an inappropriately granular given the broadness of the rest of the paragraph (I say this as the person who wrote these sentences). It refers to one particular aspect of the assessed symptoms and potential causes which is accurate but would give the misleading impression that it was the core element being investigated in the absence of the rest of my paragraph. I've opted to delete it for a broader summary as follows: Chaste Krassley (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 National Academies report was "not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause". In response to Bartholomew and Baloh, it wrote that such a cause "could not be inferred merely by the absence of other causal mechanisms or the lack of definitive structural injuries”. The committee sought evidence of potential psychological or social causes, however the scope of the provided data limited their ability to investigate these factors.

Addressing reversion of this edit by Geogene: "Not an improvement, ignores that NAS report concluded microwaves were the most likely cause, deleted references"

On the latter point, the one reference which was deleted was only cited in this one place, for the opening sentence, which by the combination of the article and the paraphrasing of it misconstrues what is said in the report. The report does not state microwave radiation is 'the likely cause' - but that it is the most plausible cause. The only thing broadly speaking the report finds to be likely is that multiple factors contribute to the variety of symptoms reported. In any case though I think it's unnecessary where the report's findings on microwaves are explored in other sections, we could certainly include a brief mention that does address that the report finds this more plausible, but it's important to be clear that the report does not make any finding against the theory of MPI or other psychosocial causes. There were no other references removed - except that the more detailed section quoted from an earlier page of the report (p25) where this only quotes from the summary/conclusion of the MPI/psycho-social section (26-27).

I also think it's important to remove the middle section; as I explained above it's inappropriately detailed without the remainder of the summary I wrote on the various factors, issues, and potential explanations on psycho-social causes the report considered. I'd also be happy for the paragraph to be expanded from my most recent edit (Like I've said I expanded it significantly previously!) but I don't think retaining that section is an adequate way to do that without giving a false impression of the focus of the report on this.

Would the following satisfy as a compromise edit:

The 2020 National Academies report found microwave radiation to be the most plausible primary cause of the symptoms, but was "not able to reach a conclusion about mass psychogenic illness as a possible cause". In response to Bartholomew and Baloh, it wrote that such a cause "could not be inferred merely by the absence of other causal mechanisms or the lack of definitive structural injuries”. The committee sought evidence of potential psychological or social causes, however the scope of the provided data limited their ability to investigate these factors.

If there are no concerns or proposed alternative edits I'll make the change in a day. If you have concerns not addressed by the above explanation or compromise edit please explain them here before reverting. Chaste Krassley (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The report does not state microwave radiation is 'the likely cause' - but that it is the most plausible cause. that's your own interpretation of a primary source, the secondary source you're trying to delete from the article reads it as 'likely cause'. I trust the secondary source's interpretation of "most plausible" = "most likely" more than I trust your claim that "most plausible" =/= "most likely". Your proposed summary is not an improvement. Geogene (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not interpretation, it is the text of the report. It repeatedly uses the phrase "most plausible" to refer to the HF radiation hypothesis, and uses the term "likely" in the context of its conclusions only when referring to the assertion that there are multiple causes for the variety of symptoms reported. I think we should prioritise the language of the primary literature here, especially as the CNN article is written by a national security rather than scientific or medical reporter and so isn't much use as an interpretive text, and on top of that hedges its language ( ie uses 'appears to') however keeping in mind the terms are broadly synonyms if you're insistent on its inclusion we can incorporate that term into the compromise edit in lieu of 'plausible'. We could even retain the source as the attribution for the term 'likely' instead of 'plausible', as unnecessary as I think that is. If you have any other issues with the edit I have proposed I would appreciate you laying them out rather than just asserting it not to be an improvement so we can work toward a compromise edit more efficiently. Chaste Krassley (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You're the editor seeking to make the change to the article, normally you would be the one to argue your new version is superior and show consensus for it. This edit [1] is not for the better, it leaves out It concludes that these could not have caused the acute "audio-vestibular" symptoms some patients experienced, such as sudden unexplained sounds. That conclusion should remain. Geogene (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've repeatedly argued why I believe my version to superior, as well as made adjustments to address your stated concerns. But ok, if that is the last of your concerns with my edit I'm glad we've at least made progress.

I was the original editor to include the line you're referring to, and the reason I favour its deletion is because, as I explained above several times, it is inappropriately granular. It is one of several issues and caveats explored by this section of the report, and is not a major conclusion of the section but instead an exploration of the plausible mechanisms by which psycho-social factors might have caused the symptoms. It is referring to 'stress-based psychological responses' specifically, not about MPI or psycho-social factors more broadly, and in the original edit it led into an explanation of the deficiencies of the data provided as claimed by the report: specifically, the data was not patient level and came with no epidemiological information. As the report outlines, this is important because such additional data would have allowed it to potentially identify: 1) whether the symptoms in question had other plausible psycho-social explanations, such as hallucination or delusion, and 2) whether these cases represented index cases from which the broader symptoms potentially spread. This is all fairly plain from a reading of pages (iirc) 24-27 of the report as well as (I had thought!) from my original edit, but is obscured here. Without these caveats indicating the significance of the conclusion, or without a credible secondary source contextualising it, its inclusion is misleading. Given what was said above re: WP:WEIGHT, as well as my recognition that the average WP reader probably doesn't want or need to know in as much detail as I personally do the breakdowns the report gives of potential mechanisms, I am inclined to agree despite having originally made that edit that these factors should not be included, but if other editors are steadfastly opposed to its removal it should be appropriately contextualised. Chaste Krassley (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

There have been a lot of radical changes to the article recently by new accounts, IPs, and SPAs. After this latest example, [2], should a request be made to put the article under semiprotection? Geogene (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty bad example, IMO. That was a good addition to the article. I have to say, the sources that you are saying outweight everything else so much that even mentioning them in the lede would be UNDUE aren't that great. The brain imaging study isn't very significant, it doesn't really show anything. Certainly doesn't prove or strongly suggest any brain damage or any sort of attack. And the best current "official" explanations is very speculative and shouldn't be given as much weight. To be clear, I'm not saying not to use those sources, I'm not saying not to give them priority, I'm saying they don't outweight everything else as much as you're saying. VdSV9•♫ 22:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The brain imaging study was at least published in a peer reviewed medical journal, which is more than I can say about your The Conversation and McGill sources [3]. As for what's "speculative" or not, that's editor opinion. Geogene (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, we are not supposed to rely on Primary studies. Peer reviewed Primary that makes medical claims is a violation of MEDRS. The NAS committee is not the last word on the matter and there is a growing body of quality SECONDARY RS challenging them. Most recently, this , and this .

Peer reviewed Primary that makes medical claims is a violation of MEDRS. MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. And you didn't have a problem stating Rofer's primary opinion about the feasibility of microwave weapons when you added it to the article just now, did you? [4] Again, at least JAMA is peer reviewed. The real problem seems to be that some people are ideologically opposed to the findings of the JAMA paper. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, please read WP:SECONDARY where you will find this: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And it's primary for Rofer's opinion. The fact that it's an opinion piece might have tipped you off to this fact, although FP likes to call them "Arguments" instead. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A secondary source is supposed to be an opinion or an analysis. What else could it be? They are bringing their expertise to interpreting a primary source in a way us editors are not qualified to do. Please, read WP:Secondary "an author's own thinking".DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought I had already written this, apparently I ended up not hitting "Publish". How is it "editor opinion"? Claiming that symptoms are caused by an unknown hypothetical infrasound or ultrasound or "energy" weapon is, by definition, speculation. No such weapon has been produced, nor has it been shown that one could cause those symptoms, let alone that it was the case in any of the reported instances. This is speculation to the third degree. VdSV9•♫ 22:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words: it's only your opinion that microwave weapons are implausible, not the aggregate opinion of reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, I agree with you on the next addition, and I have removed the recently added challenged content from the lead section as undue weight. The content was (1) a minority view (Bartholomew and Baloh's view is already amply represented in the body of the article), and (2) it is improper to juxtapose random blog posts (which is what The Conversation and the McGill website posts are_ with the NAS and JAMA studies, as per WP:WEIGHT. This content must not restored absent consensus per WP:ONUS absent consensus. Neutrality^talk 23:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Do Geogene and Neutrality agreeing on something make it a consensus? They seem to be the only editors supporting the POV that psychogenic illness is ideologically driven and fringe. RobP (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good time to mention all the Canvassing that you and Dolyalskrina have been doing to try to distort the consensus process here? [5], [6], [7]. Geogene (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Geogene please read WP:CANVASSING where you will find this: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." And please be careful about accusing editors of misconduct without cause. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't have stopped reading it there, because it goes on to point out that neither selective nor partisan notifications (yours are both) are allowed. It's also not clear why you need to go recruiting in the first place, when you're well aware that this page was recently in the Top 25, and it has 175 watchers. Unless you're looking for a specific POV. Geogene (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Douglas H. Smith

@AlexEng: re: [8] The medical team that examined 21 affected diplomats from Cuba made no mention of microwaves in its detailed report published in JAMA in March. But Douglas H. Smith, the study’s lead author and director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a recent interview that microwaves were now considered a main suspect and that the team was increasingly sure the diplomats had suffered brain injury. [9] Geogene (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I had already self-reverted. My confusion came from the fact that there are two articles, both in NYT, referencing two studies, both published in JAMA, by teams at UPenn. In the older article, Smith is named "lead author" while in the later article, Verma is referred to as the "lead author." Both are correct for their respective studies. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis

What is the deal with the deal continued suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis? RobP (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the deal with this aspersion? Geogene (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rob: Please don't cast aspersions; you should know that it's inappropriate to engage like that. As for the "psychogenetic origin" hypothesis (which is a minority view): it's given adequate weight here; we include a description of it, without bloat. I have removed a long paragraph that you added (and then re-added) consisting entirely of material from an Washington Post "analysis" (not straight news, sort of op-ed) piece. The author (Philip Bump) has no subject-matter expertise (either in medicine or espionage/intelligence), and he's not saying anything useful that's not already covered by other material in this article. Mr. Bump's writings about his own history of anxiety attacks, or his own lay assessment of the evidence, is basically immaterial. Please don't restore this content absent consensus; WP:ONUS. ---Neutrality^talk 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just getting back to this. Calling what I said ("What is the deal with the deal continued suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis?") an aspersion is ridiculous. No example on the page you linked to - of what WP considers an aspersion - (a personal attack) comes close. RobP (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just heard the expert on mass psychotogenics Robert Bartholomew and his analysis needs to be here. The lede of the current article makes it sound like the Havana syndrome is a real thing. I understand that the media is reporting in mass uncritically that it is real. But we need to go with experts and RS. Sgerbic (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I've just heard the expert on mass psychotogenics Robert Bartholomew and his analysis needs to be here. did you "hear" him or did you hear from him? Because you're both affiliated with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry [10]. This relentless advocacy for Skeptic Movement sourcing that's been going on on this talk page for years now resembles COI. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously dude - looks just like you stated your bias. Sgerbic (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am seriously biased against people that try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their businesses, their associates, and similar closely held interests. Geogene (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well we both agree then. Sgerbic (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: some sort of mention of psychogenic cause belongs in the lede. Psychogenic or psychological causes are mentioned in at least 4 of the first 20 sources cited in the lede. (Some are behind paywall) And per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the complete absence of the word in the lede is just plain wrong because both the "cricket" and "psychogenic" sections of this article itself attest to all the other good WP:RS that support the psychological idea. It's in the body, it belongs in the lede. Neutrality, you say there is a consensus to keep it out of the lede, but I don't see a consensus amongst the editors of this page, and there isn't a consensus from the sources themselves in the lede or in the body. Calling it a minority opinion doesn't help your case, because per WP:MEDRS, if the minority opinion is size-able and held by relevant experts, it is worthy of inclusion. It's time to put it back in the lede.DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Just did a search and easily found many recent (and some very new) articles discussing the Havana Syndrome. And seemingly, opinions seem to be turning the corner towards realizing that the government botched this investigation, that evidence of actual attacks do not add up, and this is in fact a psychogenic illness situation. I will post what I found here for discussion regarding what should be included in the article. Some may have been argued over in the past (?) but at least some are new, I think:

• NYT: Is ‘Havana Syndrome’ an ‘Act of War’ or ‘Mass Hysteria’?
• The National Interest: Is the Havana Syndrome Real? A Newly Declassified Report Says It May Be Crickets
• Jacobin: Will the Media Finally Learn Something From Its Fake “Havana Syndrome” Debacle?
• Unheard: Havana Syndrome is (obviously) a hoax
• foreignpolicy.com: Claims of Microwave Attacks Are Scientifically Implausible
• Scientists are skeptical that "Havana syndrome" is anything more than a psychogenic illness
• The Conversation: Havana syndrome fits the pattern of psychosomatic illness – but that doesn’t mean the symptoms aren’t real
• McGill Office for Science and Society: Havana Syndrome or a Case for Eliminating the Implausible
• Psychology Today: Evidence Mounts that Mass Suggestion Caused "Havana Syndrome"
• melmagazine.com: SHITPOSTERS AREN’T BUYING ‘HAVANA SYNDROME’ FOR A SINGLE SECOND, Extremely online operators know a hoax when they see one
• Skeptic.com: Suzanne O’Sullivan on psychosomatic disorders and other mystery illnesses, based on her book The Sleeping Beauties: And Other Stories of Mystery Illness
• firstpost.com: Mystery of 'Havana syndrome' fits the bill of mass psychogenic illness, but that doesn't mean symptoms aren't real

That Mel Magazine about "shitposting" memes [11] is some quality journalism you've got there. /s Geogene (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes... Thought that would piss you off. I admit it's not quite WP:RS material... yet the opinions expressed in it are wise beyond what most of the credulous media spouts about this topic. RobP (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so you're just trolling now? And I already know you have a problem with the mainstream media. Repeating it over and over isn't helpful unless you manage to change the RS policies. Geogene (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling me a troll? Seems like that's casting aspersions! You do realize I am not actually here to annoy you, right? That's only a satisfying side-effect. I do have a very serious interest in this article, as is demonstrated by the fact that I am the editor with the second highest contribution to it, ten times yours in fact. RobP (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Still looking for opinions regarding these sources (other than melmagazine.com obviously). Note that the NYT article was previously added and reverted I believe. RobP (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As this is about a medical matter we have to go with WP:MEDRS, we have no choice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"All around the globe"

This addition [12] by RobP exaggerates how widespread the complaints are and tendentiously feeds an MPI talking point. It even seems mocking, by imitating the voice of a childrens' book. Geogene (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

A children's book? Interesting take on a common expression. By any reasonable standards, as is currently reflected in the article, the attacks, if real, have been made all around the globe. Both East and West hemispheres and North and South. Shall I list those mentioned in the article? I will: Cuba (multiple locations), China (multiple locations), Moscow Russia; Poland; Tbilisi, Georgia; Taiwan; and Australia, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria "among other countries." Washington DC (multiple locations), Hanoi Vietnam, Vienna (multiple locations), Berlin, Serbia, London, Taiwan, and Bogota Colombia. Oh... nothing (yet) reported in Antarctica, so I guess we can wait until that happens before saying its all around the globe. Anyone who still maintains this is not psychosomatic but an actual series of attacks by persons unknown with weapons unknown (and not even demonstrably possible) is delusional. Just my opinion, but what do I know? I'm just a silly skeptic. In any case, the count seems like something over 20 (so far), so how about we just say that? I look forward to ratcheting it up as the count increases into triple digits. Hey, maybe even US astronauts on the the ISS will be attacked. That would surely make it an "all around the globe" assault on Americans. RobP (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki recruitment and this page

This [13] is not respectful of Wikipedia's consensus process. WP is not supposed to be an ideological battleground to be fought over to get your message out. Regarding, It contained only a tiny amount of skeptical material, so reading it would leave people with little doubt that the sonic attacks being discussed were real, you're not supposed to be coming here to stack this article with as much skeptical material as you possibly can, that isn't what NPOV is. Re: Unfortunately, when I reexamined it nearly a half year later, the article had grown significantly, but it had been expanded by mostly adding to the reports of the details and repercussions—medical and political—of the supposed “health attacks.” yes, the point of a Wikipedia article is to present a complete and encyclopedic summary of what reliable sources say about the subject in proportion to their due weight. Geogene (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Members of this group "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" need to disclose who they are, and when they get involved in an article. They make a big show of playing by the rules then break one of the most fundamental principals which is don't secretly coordinate off site because it's (obviously) not fair to everyone else in a consensus-based environment. It can cause disruption and bad faith. -- GreenC 04:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you think, @Rp2006:? -- GreenC 05:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsure how to deal with this, maybe ani, but not really a lot we can do here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• The linked article is very interesting but the writer does not appear to have breached any policies. The article shows that the writer is clearly aware of Wikipedia's policies and has been scrupulous about acting in accordance with those policies.

• A similar situation exists, for example, when members of the Roman Catholic church edit articles on abortion, contraception or euthanasia.

• We have a policy related to off-wiki harassment, but, afaict, other off-wiki behaviours are not restricted. There are many sites, such as Wikipediocracy, where wiki editors and others can discuss what happens on Wikipedia.

• Why is "recruitment" mentioned? Afaict the linked article is a description of the writer’s edits.

• We should not be linking editors with the off-wiki article because:

"When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes".

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". Burrobert (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident canvassing off-site is restricted and not disclosing off-site coordination of team editing of articles would be highly concerning. And there is no way to know what is occurring if the members of the group do not disclose involvement. Even on-site groups such as WP:ARS are required to disclose when they get involved, and that group is actively at this moment people are trying to shut it down as an open, disclosed, on-site canvassing group. Off site secret (unknown members) undisclosed canvassing is pretty severe by comparison. Claiming secrecy under cover of not revealing true identity is a pretty neat trick and loophole that would allow anyone for any purpose to setup off-site canvassing groups so long as members reveal true ID offsite. My name is James Spartacus, not really but that's what I said offsite it is. -- GreenC 17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, @GreenC: but, what rule has been broken? I am part of GSoW -- which I choose to disclose, we do not "need to disclose" anything AFAIK --, and I'm curious at what sort of "off site coordination" you think exists and how exactly that breaks any rules. I heard of this Havana thing a long time ago, checked the wiki article from time to time but had not gotten involved in it, only decided to edit recently after watching this interview of Bartholomew with Mick West and then going on to read and watch a bunch of other stuff about it. Neurologist Suzanne O'Sullivan's recent book also describes Havana Syndrome as psychosomatic in origin. When I came back to look at the page and the discussion I found that there seems to be a couple editors that are really pushing the "sci-fi weapons are real" POV (that the mainstream media loves, but is nothing more than speculation), and even displaying a very strange prejudice against skeptics on some comments. My assessment of the situation was that a couple of non-MEDRS studies have been published saying there might have been injury and that a psychogenic origin is unlikely (with terrible reasoning for both) and Geogene and Neutrality are saying that juxtaposing these with other studies or publications from reliable sources that criticize those studies or that claim psychogenic/psychosomatic origins for the reported symptoms is UNDUE. This is just not the case, so I decided to push back and support the addition of reliable information to a page that is slanted towards an unscientific POV. No one "recruited" me to pile up on this discussion.VdSV9•♫ 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what GSoW does off-site, if anything, will you enlighten us? Typically, mission-focused groups like this operate in a similar manner to Wikipedia Projects. This includes listing articles and consensus discussions of interest. -- GreenC 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a review of WP:FALSECONSENSUS would help?

• Any administrator may block indefinitely any suspected meatpuppet for good cause. This includes disruptive behavior like edit warring and personal attacks, but also skewing consensus or neutrality by flooding the discussion.
• The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged.
• The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
• When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Geogene (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is any of that relevant to this page? Burrobert (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Because in addition to the meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing, certain editors are trying to define consensus based on headcount. [14]. Geogene (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Inappropriate for an article Talk page. Take it elsewhere if there is more to say. Alexbrn (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Meatpuppery". Where?
• "off-wiki canvassing". Where and by whom?
• "define consensus based on headcount": Even assuming your interpretation is correct, how is that relevant?

Burrobert (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) ]

@VdSV9:, you write I choose to disclose, we do not "need to disclose" anything AFAIK – per WP:COI editors are generally expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest so that there can be no accusations of impropriety or dishonesty (e.g. vote stacking, canvassing, other means of manufacturing a consensus, or ways in which editors might not be here to improve WP in good faith). Membership in an off-WP group that (I gather) explicitly aims to coordinate WP editing is definitely one such likely source of COI. At the very least, it can look very bad for an editor (to avoid confusion I am not referring explicitly to you here, and have no horse in this race) to get involved in a dispute, only for it to transpire that their neutrality is compromised by their involvement in an off-wiki group. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Since WP:COI says, Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest and none of this applies to Guerilla Skeptics, VdSV9 is right in saying that there is no need to disclose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is a bit like saying that people participating in an edit-a-thon have a COI they must disclose. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I know almost nothing about what this group is, and I also suspect such disclosures are a good thing regardless (they help to dispel suspicion about off-wiki organizing), but I read here that "A private group on Facebook called the Secret Cabal functions as a sort of headquarters, where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next." This sounds flatly inappropriate to me. I'm opposed to decisions that affect WP being made in fora outside of WP, for a multitude of reasons. Most especially when these fora are not publicly accessible, which goes directly against the open spirit of WP, is socially exclusionary, and an artificial barrier to participation. If the situation arises where editors uninvolved in an off-Wiki forum suddenly see multiple other, apparently independent, editors turning up trying to do the same thing at the same time, and without access to information that does not exist anywhere on WP, mistakenly see this as spontaneous emergence of a consensus, then this is actually pretty dishonest and unfair. I do not think that using the letter of COI (and IMHO, Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest comes pretty close) against the spirit of it is useful in such a case. The point is, it's useful for a variety of reasons for editors not part of an off-Wiki group, which relates directly to the activities of other WP editors, to know who is in said group. And I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in withholding such information from other editors; it's not a principle I especially enjoy invoking, but in this case it seems true enough: if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to be afraid of.

If these folks just want to collaborate in editing topics related to skepticism (which, for the avoidance of doubt, I am strongly in favour of; I'm just questioning the wisdom of their apparent organizational decisions) then there's no reason I can see why they can't just participate in, say, the relevant WikiProject, or start their own. I see no excuse for private Facebook groups, or for any discussion relating directly to WP editing to be hosted on non-Wikimedia servers or in any other forum not directly accessible to other editors. This is blatantly exclusionary and unfair. And if you want to combat conspiracy theories, it does help a bit if you're not conspiratorial in your organizing. But since this is quickly ballooning beyond the scope of an article talk page, I do not propose to respond any further. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if people think this isn't the place for this, but questions have been asked, aspersions have been casted, and I would like to reply. @Archon 2488: If I were to, say, edit Susan Gerbic, I would disclose a COI in the sense that I feel like I know her too closely to present an unbiased POV of her person and her actions (even though I've never met her in person, we are online friends who are part of a group and talk from time to time about common interests, and she has interviewed me a couple of times -- some people think that the type of relationship we have does not imply a COI, but I do). Maybe there are other similar situations where I would feel I needed to disclose a COI because of my participation on GSoW, but I can't think of any such case at the moment. I am well aware of the policy and have disclosed COIs on a couple of occasions on pt.wiki because I edited pages of family members (a great-great-grandfather and a grand-uncle). I'll take the opportunity to reply to @GreenC:. We (mostly Susan) give people a basic training on how to edit Wikipedia, along with some information on basic policies and guidelines - this includes telling people to avoid canvassing etc. There is a worklist of "pages of interest" that, if someone is looking for something to work on, maybe there are improvements that could be made - and I expect someone will take this off-context and say it's some sort of fake consensus, but it isn't. It's about coming across a page that needs improving and adding to a collective to-do list. It's not like we are going to gang up on any of those pages, to the contrary, one of us might decide to pick it up and "claim" it, or it will sit there for years untouched, as most do. There is a discussion group where people share their work (in the sense of saying "hey guys, I wrote/rewrote/significantly improved this page, does anyone mind to check it out on my sandbox to make corrections/suggest improvements?) and ask for help when, for instance, there is a citation error they can't get rid of, or when they are having a hard time grasping a policy or another etc. Some people, especially --but not exclusively-- beginners, have a hard time finding help within the regular Wikipedia channels, and sometimes the help provided in Wikipedia isn't that helpful in the sense that people just say "Here are 12 pages, several hundred words each, that you have to read to understand what you're doing wrong". There is the occasional "An anti-vaxxer is removing referenced material from this page on so-and-so. How do I deal with them?". There is also the occasional post just to vent frustration, i.e. "Look at the credulous state this page is in. This is going to take a while to fix!". This means we end up sometimes learning about what others are working on and that piquing one's interest. But, again, it's not a coordinated thing. Have mistakes been made? Most definitely, everyone is always learning. I've been on WP for 15 years (granted, some of those not actively editing), 5 of which with GSoW, and I still make mistakes and learn new things all the time. But, on this page, we have specifically been told not to get involved because one of us was working on it - and I already explained above why I decided to get involved in spite of that. I really don't think my knowledge of another GSoW member being involved in editing this page is anything that needs disclosing: he didn't ask me to get involved, to the contrary. We do have shared interests and occasionally end up editing the same pages, but not in a coordinated way. There is no "off-site coordination" in a sense that breaks any rules that I know of. And we specifically are told to avoid canvassing or vote-stacking etc. When it comes to alt-med stuff, for instance, it is one of the shared interests many of us have, so every four years when athletes in the Summer Olympics show up displaying their cupping bruises all over the news, some of us would feel inclined to go the page and see if people who look up Cupping are getting good reliable information or not, and we might discuss that with the group. VdSV9•♫ 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's at ANI now, discuss it there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As others noted, it's only potentially COI if people are editing articles about themselves, closely enough related people, company they work(ed) for, etc. Not general (fringe or not) topics. —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Or when some members of the group are adding sources to other members of the group. -- GreenC 01:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources to their own work yes, perhaps those of their own org, it depends on the source type and how close the affiliation is. If in doubt, they should suggest the sources for non-involved editors to assess them, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 02:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

I'm not going to do individual pings; presumably, Alexbrn should have notified those editors whose actions are being discussed on their respective talk pages. For general information, please be aware that there is currently a discussion at ANI about this thread. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Victims"

My feeling is the word "victims", as is currently used in the lead, implies attacks. I suggest the following changes (removed wikilinks and refs for smooth reading, those should obviously be kept in the article):

(...) Beginning in 2017, additional victims reported exhibiting these symptoms reports occurred in other locations such as China, Washington D.C., and Europe. Known victims consist ofThe symptoms have been reported mostly by U.S. intelligence and military personnel and their families, including U.S. personnel on missions aimed at countering Russian covert operations.

In a way, sufferers of medical conditions, even if psychosomatic, can also be called victims, but I do feel like someone reading the current version might come away thinking we're saying these people have been attacked, and my suggestion has a smaller chance of being misleading. VdSV9•♫ 19:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"additional reports occurred" seems clunky. Reports don't really "occur"; they follow the event/incident. Not necessarily opposed to rewording but it should read smoothly. Perhaps "additional incidents were reported in..." Neutrality^talk 19:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

After the recent kerfuffle had me review the entire article, the repeated use of that term (14 times) did jump out at me. I wasn’t actually going to bring it up knowing many editors here do think these are attacks, and hence those attacked are victims. But now that the subject is being discussed, I think it would be disingenuous to say the term victim would not be construed as meaning anything other than people who were intentionally attacked. Also, when I worked on this article a long time ago (see here) there were only 2 uses of the word (in an admittedly much smaller article.) But, I also noticed that the V in HAVANA Act means Victims... an intentional construction to "legally" reinforce the official gov't position. One more thing: as a reminder, when this article was originally published four years ago! its name was something like "Sonic Attacks in Cuba." How far we have come, yet still no proof of attacks with "victims", and yet the main takeaway from reading this article four years later is still that the health issues represent undiscovered attacks with actual victims! Let me point those of you clamoring for "skeptics" to stay away from giving input on "medical matters", to Morgellons as an interesting read, esp. the Media coverage section. Rp2006 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I both agree that the word "victims" presumes that these were attacks and that the proposed rewording is too awkward to seriously consider. How about "sufferers"? Or maybe ""? Loki (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @LokiTheLiar: and @Neutrality: for the suggestions to improve the text. Thanks Rob for the input, as well. How about:

(...) Beginning in 2017, additional victimspeople reported exhibiting these symptoms in other locations such as China, Washington D.C., and Europe. Known victims consist ofThe symptoms have been reported mostly by U.S. intelligence and military personnel and their families, including U.S. personnel on missions aimed at countering Russian covert operations.

? VdSV9•♫ 02:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Reasonable. But I have an associated question. Do we have a count of the “victims” to be sure symptoms have been reported “mostly” by the specified categories of people? My understanding was it was mostly embassy staff. Surely not all of those would be US intelligence personnel. And why the specific call out on personnel aimed at countering Russian covert operations? This has now been reported at over 20 places all over the world including South America, in the US, London and even Vienna. Rp2006 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

How about something like this: Beginning in 2017, US and Canadian citizens reported having similar symptoms in many locations around the world including in China, Korea, Australia, South America, Europe and the US. Symptoms attributed to Havana Syndrome have been reported by a a wide variety of people including embassy staff, U.S. intelligence, military personnel, white house staff, and family members in many cases. Rp2006 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. I independently came to the conclusion that "victims" was inappropriate before even checking the talk page. It is clearly inappropriate to use until it has been demonstrated that it was anthropogenic in nature (an attack, pesticide poisoning, etc.) The lede is clear that the cause is unknown and leaves open the possibility that it is mass psychogenic illness. "Sufferers", "afflicted", etc. are far more appropriate and less question-begging than "victims", which is opinion/editorializing. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I only could look at the recent progress now, I noticed an improvement in that the focus is less on "attack"/"victim" discourse (that seemed prevalent when I last looked). Per a recent comment I added at FTN, some sources mention that it's outdated terminology. Thank you for improving the article, —PaleoNeonate – 01:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)