Merged US may close Cuba Embassy over 'health attacks'

[dann]

Perhaps a lot of people who are exposed to extensive fumigacion with Temefos get a brain damage, but the American diplomats were the only ones who thought they were being attacked, and were tested?

Interesting hypothesis, but not very likely. I have explained why Cubans in general wouldn't have been exposed extensively. If the people working with fumigation were, I find it unlikely that they wouldn't have mentioned their symptoms to their doctors and that those symptoms wouldn't have come up in conversations among themselves at the company.
I know a recently retired doctor of occupational medicine in Havana, Caristina. I'll ask her.

 

[steenkh]

Interesting hypothesis, but not very likely. I have explained why Cubans in general wouldn't have been exposed extensively. If the people working with fumigation were, I find it unlikely that they wouldn't have mentioned their symptoms to their doctors and that those symptoms wouldn't have come up in conversations among themselves at the company.
I know a recently retired doctor of occupational medicine in Havana, Caristina. I'll ask her.

To be honest, I was just musing. I do not really think that fumigation would cause brain damage to lots of people, but only American diplomats find out.

It would be more interesting if you could find out why 40 diplomats would have brain damage compared to a control group of the same size. Even if the 40 diplomats are a selected subset from a lot larger group, it still seems odd that diplomats at the U.S. embassy have such high incidence of brain damage.

But then, I don’t know anything about such brain damage. I was at a lecture once where I was told about age-related brain damage. This point here was that such damage grows all the time, and is unavoidable, but can be slowed down. I believe that the JAMA paper surely has excluded age-related damage, so that should not be a factor.

 

[dann]

A control group of the same size doesn't work because the group of Americans in Havana working for or through the embassy had already been selected based on one criterion: They were the ones with symptoms who turned out to also have actual detectable, physiological brain damage. You would have to start with a control group as large as all Americans in Havana affiliated with the embassy because
1) Some of those developed symptoms and were then examined
2) Some of those who were examined then turned out to have physiological brand damage according to the MRIs.

So the question is if a randomly selected group with age groups corresponding to those at the U.S. embassy and the size of the original group would have a similar number of people with brain damage.
I had a neighbor who got very severe Alzheimer's in her early fifties. The same thing happened to an office worker at my high school. And as for hearing loss:

Approximately one in three people in the United States between the ages of 65 and 74 has hearing loss, and nearly half of those older than 75 have difficulty hearing. Having trouble hearing can make it hard to understand and follow a doctor's advice, respond to warnings, and hear phones, doorbells, and smoke alarms. Hearing loss can also make it hard to enjoy talking with family and friends, leading to feelings of isolation.
Age-related hearing loss most often occurs in both ears, affecting them equally. Because the loss is gradual, if you have age-related hearing loss you may not realize that you've lost some of your ability to hear.
Age-Related Hearing Loss (NIDCD)

Some people don't realize until they are tested for other reasons, for instance, if they were the victims of a vicious microwave attack sounding like crickets!
But I am not sure if the ones whose only symptom was the loss of hearing were included in the final group.
I can no longer hear grasshoppers. Crickets are loud and clear.

ETA: It just occurs to me that if the 40 include people from other diplomatic missions than the Havana embassy, the consulate in Guangzhou, for instance, that would mean that the control group would have to be correspondingly bigger.

 

[xjx388]

A control group of the same size doesn't work because the group of Americans in Havana working for or through the embassy had already been selected based on one criterion: They were the ones with symptoms who turned out to also have actual detectable, physiological brain damage. You would have to start with a control group as large as all Americans in Havana affiliated with the embassy because
1) Some of those developed symptoms and were then examined
2) Some of those who were examined then turned out to have physiological brand damage according to the MRIs.

So the question is if a randomly selected group with age groups corresponding to those at the U.S. embassy and the size of the original group would have a similar number of people with brain damage.
I had a neighbor who got very severe Alzheimer's in her early fifties. The same thing happened to an office worker at my high school. And as for hearing loss:

Some people don't realize until they are tested for other reasons, for instance, if they were the victims of a vicious microwave attack sounding like crickets!
But I am not sure if the ones whose only symptom was the loss of hearing were included in the final group.
I can no longer hear grasshoppers. Crickets are loud and clear.

ETA: It just occurs to me that if the 40 include people from other diplomatic missions than the Havana embassy, the consulate in Guangzhou, for instance, that would mean that the control group would have to be correspondingly bigger.

From the JAMA neuroimaging study:

Two independent control cohorts were used for comparative advanced imaging analytics. The first control cohort (control set 1) was designed to optimally match the high educational and professional status of the patients and consisted of demographically similar (in terms of age, ethnicity, and education) healthy adults, holding at least 1 college degree, and performing jobs that required dexterity and multitasking. To improve generalizability of the comparisons conducted, a second control cohort (control set 2) was assembled that consisted of healthy individuals with a broader spectrum of education and skills.

That seems like a pretty good design to me. The patients were only those in Cuba.

 

[dann]

It sounds strange to me:
You take all the people who complain of a number of symptoms, brain-scan them until you are left with 40 whose brain scans show anomalies, and then you compare that group to two cohorts of "healthy adults" and "healthy individuals". How large were the two cohorts? As many as the people at the U.S. embassy who had symptoms before they were brain scanned? Or as many as the people at the embassy with or without symptoms?
When it says healthy adults/individual, it sounds as if they had no symptoms at all.

 

[xjx388]

It sounds strange to me:
You take all the people who complain of a number of symptoms, brain-scan them until you are left with 40 whose brain scans show anomalies,

Where are you getting this idea from? That’s not what the study says.

and then you compare that group to two cohorts of "healthy adults" and "healthy individuals". How large were the two cohorts? As many as the people at the U.S. embassy who had symptoms before they were brain scanned? Or as many as the people at the embassy with or without symptoms?
When it says healthy adults/individual, it sounds as if they had no symptoms at all.

You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions. I suggest you read the study itself, where you will find details that seem to be missing in your “analysis.”

In short: 44 People who reported symptoms were referred to the University of Pennsylvania team by DOS for evaluation and treatment. They eliminated 3 people from the study who had prior history of TBI and one person who did not give consent. The control group was made up of 2 groups of healthy adults of comparable age: 1) 21 with comparable education and job experience, 2) 27 with a wider range education and skills.

It’s simple. It’s a good study design. It’s not perfect.

What exactly is your objection?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Washington (CNN)Federal agencies are investigating at least two possible incidents on US soil, including one near the White House in November of last year, that appear similar to mysterious, invisible attacks that have led to debilitating symptoms for dozens of US personnel abroad.

Multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that while the Pentagon and other agencies probing the matter have reached no clear conclusions on what happened, the fact that such an attack might have taken place so close to the White House is particularly alarming.

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/poli...directed-energy-attack-white-house/index.html

 

[dann]

The CNN story doesn't make the conspiracy theory any less ridiculous. On the one hand, it insists on talking about attacks, but then on the other hand, there is this:

In one incident that was investigated, Marines on a remote base in Syria developed flu-like symptoms shortly after a Russian helicopter flew over the base -- raising immediate concerns that it could be one of these strange attacks. But "it was quickly traced, where they had bad food and where no one else on the base had the same symptoms," said one former US official with knowledge of the incident. It was also determined by a defense physician that the symptoms had begun prior to the Russia patrol, a defense official told CNN.

The Syria episode highlights the difficulties that US officials face in trying to pin down what is and isn't an attack. The symptoms often vary, and officials still have no clear sense of how the unknown adversary is doing what it's doing. At least one former US official with knowledge of the matter said that investigators still haven't completely ruled out the possibility that the symptoms are caused by some kind of naturally occurring phenomenon rather than a weapon.
US investigating possible mysterious directed energy attack near White House (CNN, April 29, 2021)

The only reason why the Americans in Havana think that they were the victims of an attack was the sound that they heard, which turned out to be crickets. That sound had the same effect on the Havana diplomats and agents as the Russian helicopter in Syria. The alleged victims of the alleged attack in Havana even recognized the recording of crickets as the sound they had heard during the 'attacks.'

This was also the only reason why microwaves became a popular hypothesis as the cause of the 'Havana syndrome': Microwaves can give rise to acoustic phenomena in the inner ear. That nobody has described that sound as similar to the sound of crickets doesn't seem to bother fans of the idea.

I'll have to get back to this fairy tale again, but I have been preoccupied with the pandemic disaster in a neighboring country. However, I have finished reading Baloh and Bartholomew's https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52576972-havana-syndrome (GoodReads). Highly recommended!

By the way, the adversary may be the best word yet for what the embassy employees experienced ...

 

[dann]

WASHINGTON — A group of Canadian diplomats is accusing Canada's government of withholding information about what the diplomats say are three new cases of brain injury resulting from "Havana Syndrome" that have been identified in the past two years.
In a letter obtained by NBC News, the diplomats said "at least three additional cases were identified in 2019 and 2020" of the mysterious illness that also affected U.S. personnel in Cuba. In its most recent public update about new cases, in January 2019, Canada's government said "the last confirmed case of unusual health symptoms" had been in 2018.
(...)
In the letter, first reported by Canada's Global News, the diplomats recount being informed by Canada's government in February that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's national police force, is still investigating and "actively engaged" in discussions with U.S. and Cuban authorities, with plans to make a "technical visit" to Havana soon.
Canadian diplomats say their government is withholding info on more 'Havana Syndrome' brain injury cases (NBC News, April 29, 2021)

I guess the Mounties can cut down on travel expenses now that the 'attacks' have moved to Washington ...

 

[dann]

And mysterious 'attacks' Down Under, too!

Now reports have revealed there were further suspected attacks, including at least two on the US mainland.
In 2019, two top CIA spies – including one of the agency’s top five highest-ranking officials – travelled to Australia to meet intelligence counterparts.
Both the Americans were struck down with a mystery illness in their hotel rooms, sources told GQ.
Mysterious Havana Syndrome ‘energy attack’ near White House being investigated (News.com.au, April 30, 2021)

 

[dann]

Maybe Cuba shares something with U.S. senators, "diplomats and intelligence officials": concern about the lack of transparency:

[Democrat Jeanne] Shaheen said she is concerned that the "clampdown" on information about the attacks has led to leaks and that there is no way to know whether the media reports are correct.

"What more can be done to declassify this information, share it with members of Congress, that lets us better respond?" she asked. "After all, we have to fund operations, and there are a lot of personnel -- not a lot -- there are personnel who have been harmed and we need to make sure they get the care and benefits they need."
Lawmaker Raises Alarm over 'Directed Energy' Attacks on US Personnel (Military.com, April 29, 2021)

 

[Belz...]

I haven't followed this topic closely... what's the summary?

 

[dann]

It doesn't come as a surprise that RT loves the story about the Russian helicopter and the cases of diarrhea in Syria:
Pentagon probe into fears of Russian ‘energy weapon’ attacks on soldiers in Syria reportedly finds symptoms down to food poisoning (RT, April 29, 2021)
I can see why stories like this one may not encourage the State Department to become more transparent ...

 

[dann]

I haven't followed this topic closely... what's the summary?

There are several! The skeptical ones are here:

Havana Syndrome Skepticism (Skeptic, Dec. 7, 2020)
Havana Syndrome, Microwaves and Hearing RF (Skeptoid, Jan. 5, 2021)
Scientists Slam Microwave Theory For “Havana Syndrome” (BuzzFeedNews, Dec. 7, 2020)
Two older articles:
Sonic Weapons in Cuba (Skeptoid, Dec. 26, 2017)
Were The ‘Sonic Attacks’ On American Diplomats Just Sci-Fi? (SkepticalEnquirer, Feb. 5, 2019)

Notice that the first article now has a postscript from this month: The Biden CIA Is Re-Examining ‘Havana Syndrome’ - Update April 5, 2021

 

[dann]

These recent articles are mentioned in the postscript to the article in Skeptic:

C.I.A. to Expand Inquiry Into Mysterious Health Episodes Overseas. (NYT, March 4, 2021)
Will US diplomats finally return to Havana, after a rash of mystery injuries? (CNN, Feb. 19, 2021)

The CNN article is very interesting in as far as it makes clear what the lack of transparency is all about:

The State Department report, which was obtained by the National Security Archive research institute though a Freedom of Information Act request, concludes that the US government's response and investigation into the so-called Havana Syndrome may have been botched from the beginning.
"You see chaos, lack of organization, you see excessive secrecy, as the authors of the report put it, all of which compromised an initial investigation assessment of what was going on," said Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst with the National Security Archive.
Part of the secrecy surrounding the incidents likely had to do with the fact that CIA officers working under diplomatic cover were among the first US officials impacted by the incidents and the first to depart Havana.
According to a timeline in the State Department report, the CIA informed the State Department in September 2017 of "its decision to withdraw its personnel from Havana for the foreseeable future."
The line is a rare public admission of a CIA station operating at a US Embassy, Kornbluh said.
Will US diplomats finally return to Havana, after a rash of mystery injuries? (CNN, Feb. 19, 2021)

It is also interesting that the alleged victims of the alleged attack in Havana don't seem to hold the Cubans responsible at all! See the two last paragraphs of the article.
That was not the impression you got when Trump's State Department was running the show.


I don't know how much this video has to do with the NYT article:

 

[Checkmite]

You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions. I suggest you read the study itself, where you will find details that seem to be missing in your “analysis.”

On this particular topic, Dann has an unfortunate habit of judging entire studies based on headlines about them, or single-sentence quotes reported in news articles. If a study sounds from the popular news coverage like it doesn't fully support his own conclusions on the subject, he will assume it is flawed, imagine what those flaws could be, and then cite those imagined flaws when dismissing it. It's rather unfortunate, because elsewhere he has indicated conscious awareness of the fact that popular reporting can completely obscure the actual findings and conclusions of a study or report, even to the point of presenting it as supporting a conclusion opposite to that which it actually supports.

For instance, an earlier report by the National Academy of Sciences wasn't outright dismissive of the possibility that there had been some kind of weaponized effect, and said so. Naturally this was reported in the press as the NAS saying that a weapon had been used. Since even entertaining the idea is enough to discredit the report in Dann's opinion, that meant the report was right out; Dann didn't know at the time what the NAS actually was, but he assumed from the name that it was some kind of governmental organization and so dismissed the report in a post here as agenda-driven charlatanry by Trump appointees, despite the fact that the NAS isn't a government or political organization and all of the paper's authors had been admitted to the academy prior to the time period of the Trump administration. When the error of this assumption was pointed out to him, he proceeded to attack the competence of the kinds of people appointed to the NAS, despite again not really understanding that process.

 

[dann]

You still haven't come up with anything from the NAS report itself. You have presented your very obvious awe and deference for the institution while ignoring who gave the researchers both the assignment and the (very limited) access to the facts of the case. As I wrote at the time:

So you have nothing whatsoever to say about the quotations from the report itself. All you have come up with is your appeal to authority. What you don't seem to understand is that your awe of the organization behind a report is not an argument for the validity of that report.

I don't know about the organization behind the report and I don't care about that organization. You are free to admire it as much as you want. I am only interested in what they say in that report.
You, apparently, are not! Otherwise, you might have used the link I provided you with, not to the organization, but to the report issued by that organization, but the report doesn't seem to interest you at all.

You still don't seem to have any interest in what the report contains, including the very obvious bias presented at the beginning to appeal to the State Department, which ordered it. That newspapers and other media latched on to this was not a coincidence. It was intended.

That the media also didn't report that the 'study' didn't leave out other explanations was a given. That was what the media was intended to do. The media did what the media was supposed to do.

That this in your opinion makes the report objective and valid is due to the confirmation of your bias, which it served as well.

 

[Checkmite]

You still don't seem to have any interest in what the report contains, including the very obvious bias presented at the beginning to appeal to the State Department, which ordered it. That newspapers and other media latched on to this was not a coincidence. It was intended.

That the media also didn't report that the 'study' didn't leave out other explanations was a given. That was what the media was intended to do. The media did what the media was supposed to do.

That this in your opinion makes the report objective and valid is due to the confirmation of your bias, which it served as well.

No. I don't engage with the silliness quoted above because it is rapacious conspiracy-mongering, again motivated by your personal prejudice against the report because of its failure to merely summarily rule out an explanation you think is worthy of ridicule - even when the report explicitly does not positively support that conclusion as the ultimate explanation.

An acknowledgment in the opening paragraphs that the government who requested the report is concerned about some type of weaponization, and that the existence of those concerns is reasonable and makes the matter worthy of investigation, isn't a signal of "bias", it's just a neutral statement of the reason why the report exists - something that most reports of this nature tend to contain. You only want it to be bias because it is the opposite of pre-emptively mocking and deriding those concerns, which you personally feel is what they deserve.

This bad-faith mischaracterization because a thing disagrees with you is, again an unfortunate habit of yours - demonstrated once again by you mischaracterizing my simply correcting you that the NAS isn't a governmental or politically-appointed body as "very obvious awe and deference", as if someone who recognized your lack of factual accuracy but was indifferent to the organization would have let your errors and the assumptions you built on them stand without correcting them.

 

[dann]

You have a weird idea of what constitutes "a neutral statement," but I'll return to that later.
For now just this: NAS Report on ‘Havana Syndrome’ Mired in Controversy (Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 45, #2, March April 2021)

 

[dann]

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/poli...directed-energy-attack-white-house/index.html

The Cuban newspaper Granma about the CNN article: U.S. deception syndrome to discredit adversaries (Granma.cu, May 14, 2021)