Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Two or more source interference

It was reported that the effect varies in amplitude with small changes in position in a room. This is consistent with the interference pattern from two or more stationary sources, as taught to schoolchildren in the UK who are studying physics, and illustrated here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7aftTF--5w Two Source Interference of Waves - A Level Physics. Supposing that the signal(s) are pulsed is not required. 92.24.183.17 (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Care to provide a better source for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

See Wave interference. The effect could also be due to one source coming through slits caused by tall buildings, or even just being reflected, and then behaving like two or more sources. I do not recall where I read that the effect varied in amplitude with small changes in position, but it is also mentioned towards the end of this article https://www.livescience.com/havana-syndrome-caused-microwave-energy-government-report.html . 88.111.111.71 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

An interference effect could be just due to the diffraction of waves entering via one or more windows and/or bouncing around off the room walls etc. 88.111.103.185 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Livescience article doesn't mention interference patterns, and we can't use an article that isn't about Havana syndrome per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If the effect is due to microwaves, then it might be Continuous-wave radar or Interferometric synthetic-aperture radar using a small wavelength to measure vibrations caused by sound-waves due to speech, including perhaps directly from the throat and mouth area. 88.111.107.215 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PLease read wp:or and wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Havana Syndrom - Theories - Possible Migraine?

Concern:

Many of the symptoms described by the affected individuals resemble symptoms of a migraine.The issue I see is that "Migraine" should be top of the symptoms list, or even probable cause.

Migraine symptoms are basically what some of the individuals describe, and having migraines does show up as a brain legion in MRI scans as well.

Migraine (General) 1) Symptoms:--99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)https://americanmigrainefoundation.org/resource-library/what-is-migraine/ 2) Symptoms phase chart: --99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)https://americanmigrainefoundation.org/resource-library/timeline-migraine-attack/ 2.1) one area they have wrong is Postdrome symptoms can last for weeks, NOT just 48 hours. 3) Various types of migraines: --99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)https://americanmigrainefoundation.org/resource-library/what-type-of-headache-do-you-have/ 3.1) this includes: 3.1.2) Migraine with Aura (Complicated Migraine) 3.1.3) Migraine without Aura (Common Migraine) 3.1.4) Migraine Without Head Pain (Silent Migraine) 3.1.5) Hemiplegic Migraine 3.1.6) Retinal Migraine 3.1.7) Chronic Migraine 3.1.8) Ice Pick Headaches 3.1.9) Cluster Headaches 3.1.10) Cervicogenic headache

Migraine lesions on MRI scans: https://mriplus.co.uk/blog/what-is-migraine-and-what-does-mri-of-brain-tell-us/

Quote from link: "Can migraines cause lesions on the brain? Yes. A landmark study published in Neurology concluded that migraines can cause lesions, particularly in the brain’s white matter.

Another well-acclaimed study published in the journal, Cephalalgia in 2011 found that migraine attacks do not only cause brain lesions but also iron depositions. In addition, the researchers reported a correlation between increased risk of developing lesions and the frequency of migraines. Similarly, the longer a person has experienced migraine attacks, the higher the risk is of developing brain lesions."

Clarification': the intent of adding "migraine" as a cause and/or symptoms does not dismiss the possibility that "Havana Syndrome" may be caused by environmental factors (Mold, toxic products/gases, rapid atmospheric pressure change, stress, OR sonar laser used by russians/Chinese/aliens). It just states that the symptoms experienced resemble migraines. Migraine does not get the public's awareness the way it should have, and the lack of the word "migraine" when mention of the Havana Syndrome shows the lack of general awareness of this condition, even for the "scientists" investigating this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.111.246 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that say this might be the reason, not your own wp:synthesis?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is so little weight given to mainstream science?

When I look at recent sources about "havana syndrome", they seem to state that scientists give more weight to the psychogenic illness explanation. Take the scientists quoted in this article in The Telegraph, published a couple weeks ago, which I was just reading: The bizarre true story of Havana syndrome: covert sonic warfare or a case of mass hysteria?:

Extended content

Havana syndrome’s apparently irresistible spread has taken place amid whispered scepticism that has, over the years, swelled to a loud chorus of scientific doubt. The initial theory pinned the blame on a sonic attack, a storyline that took hold despite a toweringly inconvenient truth: ... To suggest that sound might enter the ear and thenceforth shock the brain is, says [Irish neurologist Suzanne] O’Sullivan, ‘an anatomical nonsense’. In response, some pointed a finger at microwave radiation... Experts of different stripes queued up to undermine this suggestion. Neurologists wondered how – in defiance of accepted medical knowledge – microwaves could selectively target the brain alone... Physicists and engineers asked if it was seriously feasible that anyone could have developed a weapon of such potency... Bioengineer Kenneth Foster had told The Washington Post that the concept was ‘crazy’ To many in the mainstream medical community, the mystery of Havana syndrome wasn’t a mystery at all... Outbreaks of conversion disorder, also referred to as mass psychogenic illnesses (MPIs), have been part of the human experience throughout recorded history, documented in vast numbers. For Bartholomew, this reluctance [to tell people their illness is psychological] – born of the stigma that remains stubbornly attached to psychosomatic ailments – lies at the heart of the Havana syndrome story.

And to quote that last doctor directly (who co-wrote a book on Havana Syndrome):[1]

Extended content
Ask yourself – what is the more likely? That the diplomats were the target of a mysterious new weapon for which there is no evidence and the use of which defies the laws of physics; or they were suffering from mass psychogenic illness – a well-documented condition that has been described in the scientific literature for millennia? Commonsense and the preponderance of evidence dictate the latter.

Despite this, the explanation favoured by the mainstream medical community is given a grand total three words(!!) in an extremely lengthy lead, with the entire rest of the lead given to explanations favoured by departments of the United States government. This is not the first time the State Department and CIA have pushed WP:FRINGE pseudoscience, and I doubt it will be the last. Why are we giving so little weight to mainstream science? Endwise (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

is it "mainstream " or just one amount many theories? Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with Endwise that, as this is a page about a medical condition, it should be following WP:MEDRS, and therefore should be relying much more heavily on medical and scientific sources, and basically not at all on state sources with no direct medical expertise like the CIA or State Department. Whether that means the psychogenic illness explanation is the single medical consensus I'm a little more wary of, but I do strongly suspect that we're giving the microwave explanation way way more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves scientifically. Loki (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this article should really read more like the article for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Is there any real scientific basis and is this a real medical diagnosis? 122.151.184.34 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes this page should be WP:MEDRS compliant, and it is not. Specifically, there shouldn't be symptoms listed in the infobox or the lead. There is no diagnosis to be made. The symptoms are non-specific to start with, and then there are thousands of claimed cases, but only 24 that haven't been ruled out. So of all the vague non-specific symptoms (I have a headache I must have Havana Syndrome!) which are the ones that count? DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Simple question, can we see a list of MEDRS compliant sources for this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that articles about current events are written in chronological order according to when information is published. So it gives precedence to the symptoms and speculation over the expert conclusions. That should be corrected.

I suggest you post a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, which is fairly active.

TFD (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are very few good MEDRS on this subject. There are various studies already cited on the page already, but they are contradictory and inconclusive. The CDC convened a panel which produced a report in 2019 that was never made public, as reported by BuzzFeed News [2]. The US State Department convened a panel which produced a report in Dec 2020, but that wasn't conclusive either [3] [4]. The new expert panel convened by the CIA produced an interim report in Jan 2022 [5] [6], and later released to some media on Feb 2, 2022 [7]. The 2022 report assesses electromagnetic energy as the most plausible cause of the symptoms seen in early victims and psychological factors for the rest of them, which is most of them [8] [9]. I agree with ​​Endwise that the mainstream view has changed, but investigations on early cases is ongoing, and there isn't any MEDRS to go on. This is one of those edge cases where WP:NEWSORGS cover a subject that is clearly WP:BMI, yet we are not restricted by MEDRS from using them. The CIA panel could certainly qualify as a WP:MEDORG and their report is a WP:MEDRS, but we don't have access to it. I have written WP:MEDRSNOT to clarify the application of the MEDRS guideline for these situations. CutePeach (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  "This is one of those edge cases where WP:NEWSORGS cover a subject that is clearly WP:BMI, yet we are not restricted by MEDRS from using them" ← completely wrong, and a call for POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome in civilians

I made an edit on the Havana Syndrome page as follows

Existence of cases among civilians not connected with Federal government has also been acknowledged.

References:

Dr. James Giordano, Chief, Neuroethics Study Program, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University. Neuroscience and Ethical issues in Havana Syndrome.Havana Syndrome: Medical, Scientific, and Policy Perspectives. UT Southwestern Symposium. Feb 10, 2020 https://player.vimeo.com/video/680993448?h=06e276e6e9

Dr. Kenneth Dekleva and Dr. Munro Cullum. Concluding Discussion and Q&A Havana Syndrome: Medical, Scientific, and Policy Perspectives. UT Southwestern Symposium. Feb 10, 2020 https://player.vimeo.com/video/680995857?h=0a6b36ea3f

Alexbrn swiftly removed my edit as unreliable. I wrote to him: Hi Alexbrn You removed my edit on Havana Syndrome page as unreliable. However, it was supported by statements by one of the leading experts in the field of neuroweapons, Dr Giordano of Georgetown University at a medical symposium organized by UT Southwest. Judging by the expediency with which you removed the edit, you didn't have time to review two videos from the symposium I posted as substantiation. I would hardly call a statement from the leading expert in the field at a medical symposium unreliable. Please, correct the situation. Thank you.

Alexbrn responded: We need reputably-published sources, and the WP:LEDE must only be a summary of material already in the article body. Please make any further comment at Talk:Havana syndrome. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk)

My references are not articles, they are videos from the symposium, and calling University organized symposium with the utmost experts in the field unreliable makes little sense. The videos contain statements which I summarized in my edit. Looking forward to everyone's comments, and whether you agree with me, so I can restore the edit.

Thank you --Lenbermd (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Videos are not usually considered reliable sources on Wikipedia since they are often WP:SELFPUBLISH. Individual experts speaking (rather than in written form and vetted by some kind of publisher) is also similarly unpublished and unreliable and easy to cherry pick. Finally, this topic probably falls under our strictest sourcing requirement, WP:MEDRS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it fails MEDRS. To restore it would not be acceptable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Symposium videos are published by University of Texas Southwest. Hardly self-published. Lenbermd (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Self publication or not isn't the point really because of WP:MEDRS which you should read. You may find it enlightening. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliability is determined by the amount of fact-checking. By their nature, recorded presentations are not fact-checked between recording and release. A speaker could easily say 6% when they meant to say 60% for example. Furthermore, the speaker may be speaking outside their area of expertise or may qualify that they are only giving a draft paper that may still contain errors or omissions. TFD (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a common ground can be found with 'suspected civilian cases'. In which we can mention that Dr. Giordano brought it up in the symposium.

Alongside some other notorious figures in the field like Dr. Hoffer or Mark Zaid. 404UserName (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not without WP:MEDRS, because WP:V and WP:NPOV are core policy: we need suitable reliable sources and to ensure we are reflecting what has been published in them. Also, is 404UserName the same as Lenbermd ? Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK the Havana Task Force delegated the civilian reports to the FBI. I assume a FOIA request to confirm the existence of these reports does satisfy the conditions of WP:V and WP:NPOV?

Also not the same person. 404UserName (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Google translate tells me that a civilian reported a case in the EU.

It's from an official government document. They didn't investigate but acknowledged the report.

Can we now finally change the page to include suspected civilian case reports?

https://chd.lu/wps/PA_RoleDesAffaires/FTSByteServingServletImpl?path=62581F2FD7D4AF57F862BEB39F27745E70CB7F0CE55BB481275E5659B817DD15DAAEBECB17134F6EA0F1FA32E9183440$17BF3B732F16A34DC452E8AA843D39B3 404UserName (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's trivia that means nothing. Bon courage (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

New articles

This is a new article, by a psychologist summarizing the case for HS to be psychogenic in nature. While this one from WebMd in January straddles the fence. Rp2006 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

All of this is put to rest in scientifically/medically reliable source book: "Havana Syndrome." So all of this needs to be corrected. THERE was/is no HAVANA SYNDROME simply a form of mass hysteria. No brain damage. No foreign program. :Just very untruthful people and no skeptics.

PJ Andrea (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)pj andrea

The Dancing plague of 1518 could also have been psychogenic illness and yet it is widely regarded as a real thing. Havana syndrome being psychogenic in nature does not mean it does not exist. AceSevenFive (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

References

JASON Report

The JASON report, commissioned by the State Department and made public in February 2022, is the most comprehensive report that I've seen on this subject, yet it is barely mentioned. I therefore wrote a summary and put it in the "government investigations" section, but I'm not sure if that's where it belongs.2600:4040:44E8:FA00:3D31:589C:1027:DDCA (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Official report

Is it finally time to change the tone of this article (such as info box stating cause is "Not determined") to more strongly support that HS was all yet another in the long history of mass psychogenic illness events, rather than possible sci-fi weaponry by mysterious foes? See ‘Havana syndrome’ not caused by energy weapon or foreign adversary, intelligence review finds for the latest. If not, what will it take? Rp2006 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think the first and most important step is to remove the list of vague symptoms from the infobox. This is not a diagnosible condition, so the symptoms, which would apply to anything from a hangover to a concussion should not be placed so prominently. It's fine to list them in the body, IMO. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I took a crack at improving article to reflect current official US opinion. More work is needed! Rp2006 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I just spent some time re-organizing/reordering the sections to perhaps better highlight the more important information in light of the new report. Rp2006 (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, it’s pretty embarrassing they kept up the charade as long as they did. Thanks for working on the article. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Since this article was created (and was named Sonic Attacks in Cuba), I attempted to strengthen the scientific skepticism POV herein -- with proper RS citations from psychologists and scientists having a contrary view stating that this appears not to be what was being claimed. But the majority of editors would have none of that, said I was pushing a fringe POV, and many of my edits were suppressed making me back-off. I was actually told skeptics should "stick to debunking UFOs and Bigfoot and not delve into medical matters." MEDRS was repeatedly cited as the rationale I should stop adding citations with the contrary POV, as if the "medical conclusions" were the final, undisputed word on HS, thus proving (sci-fi) weaponry was involved. I must admit, vindication feels good. (I wont hold my breath, however, waiting for an apology from some specific people I will not name. They are probably thinking Rubio is correct, because he also will not give up on HS being of enemy origin.) Rp2006 (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Being a skeptic on wikipedia against claims from government organizations (particularly US government departments) can often be a losing battle, even if we have RS from professionals raising this point. Some may say this is simply a immune system reaction to relatively recent wildly debased covid conspiracies, but I think it's been the case for quite some time. Hopefully this can serve as a case study for the ways in which wikipedia can (unintentionally or otherwise) amplify US government perspectives at the expense of nuance from the public and related professionals. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It is kind of funny to look back over the article history/talk page discussion and see multiple editors, including one administrator, arguing that skepticism over physically infeasible microwave weapons from science fiction is WP:FRINGE. Maybe there's a lesson for Wikipedia to learn here about not blindly trusting ramblings of the US intelligence community about scientific matters, particularly when there's a political incentive for them to bend the truth.

Not like this scenario is ever going to come up again or anything... Endwise (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there's a lesson for Wikipedia to learn here about not blindly trusting ramblings of the US intelligence community ← LOL, you seen Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory lately? Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Haven't read the talk page discussion, but that's exactly why I linked that lab leak article lol Endwise (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Man… some people here have damn worms in their brains. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• What do involved editors here think about adding something from "Havana Syndrome Is Fake. But Mainstream Media Couldn’t Get Enough of It for Years"? It takes the media to task for credulously reporting on HS as a real thing. This is the primary reason why this WP article has been so slanted toward accepting and documenting the nonsense since 2016 when the Trump administration made the claims w/o evidence. If this is a WP:RS, maybe add to section: Criticism of media coverage? Rp2006 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Support the idea of having a section devoted to the media's coverage of the affair. The Jacobin article would be a good place to start. Hopefully there will be more over time. Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am also wondering if it would be appropriate to change the infobox, which is one for a medical condition, to something else. Part of the reason WP editors restrained valid skeptical opinions from this article was the claim that this fell under WP:MEDRS, which I for one never bought into. Having this infobox results in including things like diagnosis and a list of symptoms (everything under the sun), which at this point seems ludicrous. Rp2006 (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  But I do think it's important to keep the short existing list of "symptoms" on the infobox. Specifically, because the very first sentence of the lede on this article says: "Havana syndrome is an alleged set of medical symptoms with unknown causes experienced mostly abroad by U.S. government officials and military personnel."

  So it would be good that the alleged symptoms info remains available and visible on the infobox, in my opinion, for quick and easy access by readers. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, including the symptoms was always a violation of WP:MEDRS. The symptoms have always been WP:FRINGE, and the symptoms have always been vague. This is not a diagnosable condition, hence the word Syndrome. I say change the type of infobox, and take the symptoms out of the new infobox. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  How do you square that with the fact that we are talking about Havana Syndrome as an "alleged set of medical symptoms" then? Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I will remind everyone that the original page name was Sonic Attacks in Cuba. What's my point? Perhaps that just because the media started calling it Havana Syndrome (and this page was thus renamed to follow) does not make it a real medical syndrome needing a medicalinfo-box. Or am I wrong? I suggest using "Infobox alternative diagnosis" as is on the Morgellons page. Rp2006 (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I have spent way too much time looking for a reasonable infobox replacement--I no longer think the Infobox alternative diagnosis is pertinent--but have come up empty! I even posted a query here but there are no replies yet. Any other ideas? Rp2006 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for a reorg

Reports, investigations and/or studies are discussed in too many sections of this article to be reasonably followed regarding what happened when. And the order of these I think is more important than things like where they were associated with (Cuba/China...) I just combined two of these subsections that were both in the Cuba section into one, but there are still too many separate areas (I count 3 at least). I suggest all such material be combined - chronologically - into just one section. I'd like to get consensus on this before spending the time to do it. Rp2006 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No response, so I will attempt a restructuring. Rp2006 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

OK... I took a stab at it. Moved all the reports, analysis, etc to a new section. Out of time for now, but the basics are complete. Still need to verify the material in each year is applicable as well as not redundant. I'm sure within each year it can be organized in some way as well. (Positive vs negative findings? By agency doing report? Also: one problem was that it wasn't obvious where to put something that was commissioned in one year but released to the press later... not sure the material is consistent yet regarding that issue.) Rp2006 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Probably! Rp2006 (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

is Havana Syndrome unproven?

civilians cases like Len Ber, M.D. have now been diagnosed by Dr. Hoffer who diagnosed the diplomats. Babies across the homeland and their mothers while they try to nurse are also confirmed cases with acquired brain and vestibular organ damage. its not unproven. Tinyurl.com/havanababy Medicineowl (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)