Jump to content

Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Protected edit request on 11 April 2024

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

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

NIH reports deleted?

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

The information was removed due to a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines as they relate to this topic. I support restoring the content, citing any of the credible sources mentioned below, with clear attribution of all claims to these sources.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/us/politics/havana-syndrome-brain-studies-nih.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/no-evidence-of-brain-injury-in-people-suffering-havana-syndrome-us-study
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-study-finds-no-brain-injuries-among-havana-syndrome-patients
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/18/1239087164/nih-studies-no-pattern-harm-havana-syndrome-patients-brains
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/health/havana-syndrome-studies/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/18/nih-havana-syndrome-mri-scans/
https://apnews.com/article/havana-syndrome-diplomat-health-brain-ea64e5c59d57e44a19aab40ac1b91e0d
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/18/havana-syndrome-study-government-officials
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-study-finds-no-evidence-havana-syndrome-brain-injury-2024-03-18/ FailedMusician (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is historically important info ← have you got a source saying that? Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The editor expressed their view on the historical significance of the NIH study, a perspective I share. This viewpoint doesn't require a source for our discussion since it wasn't suggested to be directly included in the article. FailedMusician (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I apply Hitchen's razor to that then. Bon courage (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage Please note that talk page guidelines prohibit the behaviour you're displaying here. The editor didn't propose adding their personal opinion to the article in relation to the historically importance of the NIH study, and your comments here lack a policy-based rationale for including or excluding the content in question, much like in discussions above. Continued actions of this nature, and any further veiled threats [1], will result in an immediate escalation to an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not a forum so personal views have no place here, unless to inform article content. In which case they need to be evidenced. Evidence that something was "historically significant" would be coverage from a history RS, or a statement in RS to that effect. Bon courage (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It is clear that @Rp2006 expressed an opinion on the NIH study's historical significance to support its inclusion in the article. Yet, you have not offered your opinion on the matter or the sources I've provided above. FailedMusician (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think my opinion matters that much; let's just follow the WP:PAGs. For anything in the realm of biomedicine we need WP:MEDRS, and these sources are WP:MEDPOP. They may however have other uses. Bon courage (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you arguing that we can't include any attributed claims relating to the widely reported NIH study from the reliable sources? FailedMusician (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
None of the list you posted above are 'the reliable sources' as far as WP:MEDRS is concerned. MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Just so that I understand your argument, for the wording of an RFC, are you saying that news sources, even when there are ten of them, can't be used for attributed claims? FailedMusician (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Not about biomedical information, no. This is pretty basic sourcing stuff. I would suggest you seek clarification about this at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RSN before wasting community time with an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Given the lack of consensus among editors on distinguishing between biomedical information and the inclusion of news sources for the subject's political aspects, an RFC could determine the article's content scope and sourcing standards. Indeed we can post the RFC to WP:RSN to draw in more editors. FailedMusician (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BMI requires WP:MEDRS sources. Always.
Since we are talking about WP:PRIMARY medical studies it is unlikely that they could be used to support any kind of statement on Wikipedia.
As far as the encyclopedia is concerned they are useless as they are not reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
If you include political comments made by non-experts in news reports that are associated with the potential causes, you could just as well include comments made that the IC's recent conclusion that a foreign adversary attack is unlikely may have been influenced by ulterior motivates.
I think neither speculation that the psychogenic hypothesis was downplayed, nor speculation that the attack hypothesis was downplayed are worthy of encyclopedic knowledge. Other speculations coming from news commentators, such as financial incentives, etc, aren't worthy of including either. Political drama playing out in the news media is polarized, highly speculative, and generally very unreliable. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:FEAA:8175:D911:7AFE (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
If this information isn't notable, then neither is 40% of what is on the page right now. The exact same type of RS is being used. So let's put it in or start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yup. Bon courage (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Great, so it seems there is a consensus here to reinstate the content. FailedMusician (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
No, the consensus can only be to "start cutting all the other dodgy brain studies". Bon courage (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, your opinion has been noted. FailedMusician (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
We should cut all WP:BMI unless sourced with WP:MEDRS and only keep WP:NOTBMI {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
It should be reinstated without being misrepresented. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. FailedMusician (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
"This is historically important info as it has the US reversing itself on previous claims made regarding claimed injuries to diplomats."
Again you're misrepresenting the NIH studies. 2605:59C8:33D2:D310:6A68:DE4E:F3D6:C886 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

All these are unreliable sources. Primary research reported on by new organisations is notoriously poor. We have really good sources on this, so why is the barrel being scraped? Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Why do you say the NIH reports from JAMA are unreliable? Or are you saying the NY Times is unreliable? What about other studies in years 2018 to 2023 (listed in the Studies section) ... do you have the same opinion of those prior studies? Do you propose removing the entire "Studies" section? When you say "we have really good sources" which specific sources are you considering? I ask all these questions because your point seems a bit irrational, no offense. Noleander (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It's primary research, so unverified. Primary research is often wrong; read WP:WHYMEDRS if you want some background. The NYT is an unreliable sourcer for health content (like all newspapers). This is well established consensus on Wikipedia, for very good reasons. To be clear all the primary research should go: the article needs a major haircut. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The US gov't sponsored the early JAMA reports finding supposed evidence of energy weapon attacks, and it and the media used this result to claim attacks had occurred. And of course this was widely (and sensationally) covered in the media. How is this NOT acceptable to report on here? And then the US gov't sponsored another set of studies - also published in JAMA - which largely contradicted the early JAMA reports. And the media also reported this. And this information also should not be in this article? Rp2006 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Because as you can see the primary studies are often contradictory/unreliable. Which one is right? We wait for the matter to be settled through the process of science. That's what Reviews are made for @Rp2006. Those reports are unreliable for WP:BMI {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
So then, you are advocating removing refs to the JAMA reports in the section "Chronology of investigations, studies, reports, and analysis"? Rp2006 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 April 2024 (2)

In the Causes section add links to the relevant articles:

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

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

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

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

 Done No comments or opposition, so request carried out in full — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @MSGJ {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 April 2024

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

Protected edit request on 16 April 2024

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

"(formally "anomalous health incidents"[1][2])

References

  1. ^ "Anomalous Health Incidents and the Health Incident Response Task Force". United States Department of State. November 5, 2022. Archived from the original on December 17, 2022. Retrieved December 11, 2022.
  2. ^ "FY2022 NDAA: Care for Anomalous Health Incident Victims". Congressional Research Service. February 7, 2022. Archived from the original on December 12, 2022. Retrieved December 12, 2022.

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

A formal name does not designate which came first but rather which term is preferred in the academic literature. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Doh, formally not formerly. I'm embarrassed. But still. I think "also known as" is much more user friendly. Especially since there is nothing formal about AHI. It's not a diagnosis. There have been over a thousand claimed cases and only 24 that seem to remain unaccounted for. Which of those would be AHI? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

That would help. However, I just did a quick search of Wikipedia. "formally called" "formally known as" barely appear in wikipedia. So far I haven't found "formally x" in any lede at all. Contrast that with "informally" which is used much more. I am personally very familiar with "informally" but have never seen "formally" used in a lede. This is an odd bird and needs to be culled. DolyaIskrina (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
You may be right. I added it just to give it the formal name that government agencies refer to it by after reading about it in the Insider article. FailedMusician (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Ferien (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all! DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI

This is easier than tryiong to tell each user.

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

"Beyond Cuba" section (formatting only discussion)

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

Can you throw up what that would look like in talk? It sounds non-controversial but would like to see. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Have done so, to me this looks a lot cleaner and the groupings make more sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah that looks good to me. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I support this, but I have a few questions.
Could we stack notes 12-18 in one efn/ref? Could we remove the NYT's speculative quote? Also: "While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal." - the phrasing is a bit tendentious, could we just state plainly (for context) that these talks were ongoing at the time? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
We likely could, but those sorts of changes are not within the scope of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah right, the first one is though. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Support as well {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 20:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
We need to avoid trying to list every claimed incident. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree but this discussion is only to change the format of the extant text on the page. And within the bounds of this discussion I like the suggestion. We can discuss trimming content at a later date - preferably after we've calmed down the sturm und drang over 60 minutes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Beyond Cuba (proposed)

Beginning in late 2017, suspected attacks targeting U.S. intelligence personnel were reported in an expanding set of locations around the world,[1] including Moscow, Russia; Tbilisi, Georgia; Poland; Taiwan; and Australia.[2] Other reports came from Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Austria,[3] among other countries.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] One of the CIA officials with symptoms in Australia and Taiwan was one of the agency's top five officials.[2] The Russian embassy in Australia dismissed reports of Russian operatives targeting CIA personnel in Australia.[10]

The U.S. government has not released the number of affected persons, but media reporting indicated a total of 130 possible cases by the end of May 2021,[3] rising to more than 200 by mid-September 2021.[11] The cases variously affected CIA, U.S. military, and State Department personnel and their family members.[3] Some reports, after investigation, were determined to be possibly related to Havana syndrome, while others were determined to be unrelated; BBC News reported in 2021 that "One former official reckons around half the cases reported by US officials are possibly linked to attacks by an adversary."[12]

In August 2021, it was reported that two American diplomats were evacuated from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam, after incidents of Havana syndrome were reported.[13] These reported cases also delayed Vice President Kamala Harris's visit to Vietnam.[14][15] In September 2021, an aide-de-camp of CIA director William J. Burns reported symptoms consistent with those of Havana syndrome on a diplomatic visit to India.[9] In October 2021, it was reported that U.S. embassy personnel and their families in Bogota, Colombia, had developed symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome.[16][17]

China

Consulate General of the United States in Guangzhou

Starting in early 2018, U.S. diplomats in China began reporting symptoms consistent with Havana syndrome. The first such incident was reported by an American diplomat in China in April 2018 at the Guangzhou consulate, the largest U.S. consulate in China. The employee reported that he had been experiencing symptoms since late 2017. Several individuals were taken to the U.S. for medical examination.[18][19][20] A USAID employee at the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, reported a different incident in September 2017; the employee's report was discounted by the U.S. State Department.[21]

Answering questions from the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testified that U.S. diplomatic staff in Guangzhou had reported symptoms "very similar" to, and "entirely consistent" with, those reported from Cuba.[22][23] On June 6, 2018, The New York Times reported that at least two additional U.S. diplomats stationed at the Guangzhou consulate had been evacuated from China and reported that "it remains unclear whether the illnesses are the result of attacks at all. Other theories have included toxins, listening devices that accidentally emitted harmful sounds, or even mass hysteria."[19] In June 2018, the State Department announced that a task force had been assembled to investigate the reports[24] and expanded their health warning to all of mainland China amid reports some US diplomats outside of Guangzhou had experienced the same symptoms resembling a brain injury.[25] The warning told anyone who experienced "unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises" to "not attempt to locate their source".[26]

Washington, D.C., area

In 2019, a White House official reported experiencing debilitating symptoms while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb of Washington; the incident was publicly reported in 2020.[6] In November 2020, a similar incident was reported on The Ellipse, a lawn adjacent to the south side of the White House.[6][27] Both incidents were similar to those that were reported to have struck dozens of U.S. personnel overseas, including CIA and State Department personnel.[6] Federal agencies investigated the incident at The Ellipse, and Defense Department officials briefed members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee in April 2021.[6] Investigators told members of Congress that they had not been able to determine the cause of the events or who was responsible.[6]

Europe

U.S. embassy in Vienna, Austria

In 2021, dozens of U.S. personnel stationed in Vienna, including diplomats, intelligence officials, and some children of U.S. employees, had Havana syndrome-like symptoms.[28] The State Department confirmed in July 2021 that it was investigating the reports.[29] The Austrian foreign ministry stated it was collaborating with American investigators. Aside from Havana, Vienna has reported the most incidents. While no suspects were named for the Vienna cases, it has been noted that Vienna was hosting indirect talks between the United States and Iran on reviving the 2015 Iran deal.[30] In September 2021, the CIA station chief in Vienna (the top U.S. intelligence officer in the country) was recalled over concerns over his management; he had been criticized for not taking quicker action in response to the Havana syndrome cases at his post.[11][28]

In the months preceding August 2021, cases of Havana syndrome were reported at the U.S. embassy in Berlin, Germany, including from two U.S. officials who sought medical treatment.[31] Several new cases were reported at the embassy in October 2021.[32]

In 2021, the CIA evacuated an intelligence officer serving in Serbia suspected of being a victim of the neurological attack.[1]

Three White House staffers reported symptoms at the InterContinental London Park Lane in late May 2019.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Strobel, Warren P. (September 28, 2021). "Havana Syndrome Attacks Widen With CIA Officer's Evacuation From Serbia". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on August 9, 2022. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  2. ^ a b Ioffe, Julia (October 19, 2020). "The Mystery of the Immaculate Concussion". GQ. Archived from the original on May 29, 2021. Retrieved May 30, 2021.
  3. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Entous was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Entous, Adam; Anderson, Jon Lee (November 19, 2018). "The Mystery of the Havana Syndrome: Unexplained brain injuries afflicted dozens of American diplomats and spies. What happened?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on November 27, 2018. Retrieved December 3, 2018.
  5. ^ Payne, Elizabeth (November 30, 2018). "Ottawa doctor treating Canadian diplomats with mysterious 'Havana syndrome'". Ottawa Citizen. Archived from the original on December 4, 2018. Retrieved December 3, 2018. It is being called Havana syndrome and officials in Canada and the United States, where more than 20 diplomats have been affected, are trying to identify the cause of the injuries.
  6. ^ a b c d e f Katie Bo Williams & Jeremy Herb, US investigating possible mysterious directed energy attack near White House Archived April 29, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, CNN (April 29, 2021).
  7. ^ Entous, Adam. (July 16, 2021). Vienna Is the New Havana Syndrome Hot Spot. Archived August 1, 2021, at the Wayback Machine The New Yorker. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  8. ^ Hruby, Denise and Hansler, Jennifer. (July 19, 2021). Austria probes reports of Havana Syndrome among US diplomats in Vienna. Archived July 31, 2021, at the Wayback Machine CNN. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  9. ^ a b Atwood, Kylie (September 20, 2021). "Member of CIA chief's team reported Havana syndrome symptoms on recent trip to India". CNN. Archived from the original on September 20, 2021. Retrieved September 21, 2021.
  10. ^ Bucci, Nino (October 28, 2020). "Russia issues extraordinary statement over reports CIA agents were attacked in Australia". The Guardian. Archived from the original on June 2, 2021. Retrieved May 30, 2021.
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Myre was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference Corera was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ "Two U.S. diplomats to be evacuated from Vietnam after "Havana Syndrome" incidents". NBC News. August 2021. Archived from the original on August 24, 2021. Retrieved August 24, 2021.
  14. ^ Wright, Jasmine; Liptak, Kevin; Diamond, Jeremy; Sullivan, Kate (August 24, 2021). "Possible Havana syndrome incident delayed Harris flight to Vietnam". CNN. Archived from the original on August 24, 2021. Retrieved August 24, 2021.
  15. ^ KAYALI, Laura (1 April 2024). "Havana Syndrome linked to Russian military agency GRU, investigation indicates". Politico.
  16. ^ "Havana syndrome reported at US embassy in Colombia". BBC News. October 13, 2021. Archived from the original on October 13, 2021. Retrieved October 13, 2021.
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference The Economist was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ "China Pledges to Investigate Fears of Sonic Attacks on U.S. Diplomats". The New York Times. June 7, 2018. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
  19. ^ a b Myers, Steven Lee; Perlez, Jane (June 6, 2018). "U.S. Diplomats Evacuated in China as Medical Mystery Grows". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 18, 2018. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
  20. ^ "US diplomats evacuated from China amid 'sonic attack' concerns". CNET. June 6, 2018. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
  21. ^ Dorsey, Steve (November 28, 2017). "Uzbekistan incident raises suspicions of Russian involvement in Cuba attacks". CBS News. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved June 8, 2018.
  22. ^ Harris, Gardiner (May 23, 2018). "Pompeo Says Mysterious Sickness Among Diplomats in Cuba Has Spread to China". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 6, 2020.
  23. ^ Jiang, Steven; Westcott, Ben; Vazquez, Maegan (March 23, 2018). "Pompeo says China incident 'entirely consistent' with Cuba 'sonic attacks'". CNN. Archived from the original on January 6, 2019. Retrieved June 8, 2018.
  24. ^ Kuo, Lily (June 7, 2018). "'Sonic attack' fears as more US diplomats fall ill in China". The Guardian. Archived from the original on September 12, 2018. Retrieved June 8, 2018.
  25. ^ "U.S. expands China health alert amid illness reports". Reuters. June 7, 2018. Archived from the original on June 8, 2018. Retrieved June 8, 2018.
  26. ^ Achenbach, Joel (June 8, 2018). "Controversy surrounds research on State Department employees sickened in 'attacks'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 10, 2018. Retrieved June 10, 2018.
  27. ^ Beitsch, Rebecca (April 29, 2021). "US investigating possible 'Havana syndrome' attack near White House: CNN". The Hill. Archived from the original on April 29, 2021. Retrieved April 29, 2021.
  28. ^ a b John Hudson & Shane Harris, CIA station chief in Vienna recalled amid criticism of management and handling of mysterious 'Havana Syndrome' incidents Archived September 27, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Washington Post (September 23, 2021).
  29. ^ Entous, Adam (July 16, 2021). "Vienna Is the New Havana Syndrome Hot Spot". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
  30. ^ "'Havana syndrome'-like mystery illness affects Vienna US diplomats". BBC News. July 17, 2021. Archived from the original on July 17, 2021. Retrieved July 17, 2021.
  31. ^ Bojan Pancevski, U.S. Officials in Germany Hit by Havana Syndrome Archived August 18, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Wall Street Journal (August 18, 2021).
  32. ^ "Havana syndrome: Berlin police probe cases at US embassy". BBC News. October 9, 2021. Archived from the original on October 11, 2021. Retrieved October 13, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Havana_syndrome/Archive_6&oldid=1231090865"