Merged US may close Cuba Embassy over 'health attacks'

[dann]

The shooter may be a paranoid schizophrenic, but apparently Cuba has received no official information yet and sees the incident in the light of the general hostile attitude of the U.S. government.
I also wonder about the impact that the accusations against Cuba of having 'attacked' U.S. diplomats in Havana may have had on the perpetrator.

Prensa Latina: Minister Bruno Rodríguez in his remarks to the press that same day, said that certain individuals can feel driven to execute such acts within the context of aggressive anti-Cuban rhetoric. What is your opinion about that?
Ambassaor Cabañas: History is witness to that. If you take the date of occurrence of similar events in the past and compare it with the state of the bilateral relations at that moment, you will find that attacks against our embassies and staff took place precisely when the attitude of the United States was most hostile toward Cuba.
The assailants are not only politically driven, they also feel that the moment is opportune and that they can have certain immunity.
When you see every day, absolutely every day, high-level officials of the U.S. government attacking Cuba, reinforcing the blockade, even as we are all battling COVID-19 and the U.S. officials gruesomely and immorally attack our brigades and medical doctors, well, this verbal terrorism only lacked armed terrorism and it happened.
What happened? Jose Ramon Cabañas, Cuban ambassador in Washington, tells Prensa Latina (Granma.cu, May 6, 2020)

Mara Tekach, chargé d'affaires of the United States Embassy in Havana, is the only official who has made any kind of statement regretting the incident that Cuba described as a serious terrorist attack.
However, neither the US Department of States nor the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, have even made a formal public condemnation, ambassador Cabañas warned in an interview with Prensa Latina.
Instead, Pompeo, referring to Cuba a day after the attack, spoke out against Cuban medical brigades that provide assistance to dozens of countries in the world, the diplomat emphasized.
U.S. congressmen condemn armed attack on Cuban embassy (CubaSi, May 8, 2020)

 

[dann]

Bruno Rodríguez speaks with the press regarding attack on Cuban embassy in the United States (Granma.cu, May 12, 2020)
Terrorist attack on Cuban embassy is the result of the U.S. government's hateful policy (Granma.cu, May 13, 2020)
Attack on Cuban embassy in Washington brings complicit silence from U.S. government (Granma.cu, May 13-14, 2020)

The Foreign Minister noted that Alazo Baró planned the attack well in advance, as he had visited the site for exploratory purposes two weeks before the attack.
According to legal documents to which the public has had access, “Alazo Baró visited a hospital, where he surely expressed his feelings and delusions of persecution by alleged Cuban criminal groups and the Cuban government itself, and subsequently visited the offices of several law enforcement agencies, that is, several United States national security agencies, to make accusations against our government and to denounce its alleged intention to kill him.
“It is the responsibility of the United States government to explain what follow-up was given to these accusations by Alazo Baró and what action was taken when an individual with these characteristics and background makes accusations … against a country with a diplomatic seat in U.S. territory,” Rodríguez continued.
He insisted, “I must say that negligence is evident in the conduct of the United States government, which did not act on information of this nature.”
U.S. government silence denounced (Granma.cu, May 15, 2020)

 

[dann]

I guess it was to be expected that the State Department wouldn't share information with Cuba about the attacker's connections in Miami:
Twenty days of complicit silence (Granma.cu, May 21, 2020)


The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, but by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, so the Cuban medical brigades may actually have a chance of being awarded:

More than 40 European organizations are backing a proposal to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Cuban medical brigades of the Henry Reeve Contingent, for their contribution to the global battle against COVID-19.
Launched April 28 by the associations Cuba Linda and France Cuba, the initiative has thus far received the support of solidarity groups, political organizations and unions in France, Spain, Ireland and Italy, and thousands of Internet users on the Facebook page “Prix Nobel de la paix pour les brigades médicales cubaines Henry Reeve.”
Some supporters of the effort to recognize Cuban physicians advocate extending the campaign with an international committee.
Nobel Peace Prize for Cuban doctors continues to gain supporters (Granma.cu, May 27, 2020)

 

[dann]

Picking up from the post above: Interesting that Trump is now competing with the Cuban doctors for the 'Noble' Peace Prize:
Trump's nomination makes a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize (Independent, Sep. 12, 2020)

However, I doubt that he stands a better chance of getting it than of getting the one he claims he already got:
Trump boasts about getting 'Bay of Pigs award' - which doesn't exist (Guardian, Sep. 13, 2020)
Trump Brags About Receiving Nonexistent 'Bay Of Pigs' Award From Cuban Community (HuffPost, Sep. 14, 2020)


Maybe he should go for the one in medicine instead, for his bleach & UV-light idea ...

Deadly politics: Cuba’s Covid-19 treatment and U.S. refusal to save lives (TheFinalCall, Sep. 1, 2020)


I haven't seen any news about the alleged sonic (or whatever) attacks for about six months. I guess the Cuban healthcare workers and researchers are busy fighting the virus like in most other countries but with more success than most.
They are also developing a Cuban vaccine: Second group of volunteers join Soberana clinical trials (Granma.cu, Sep. 10, 2020)
But I did find this from William A. Yost, PhD, Spatial Hearing Laboratory, whom I've mentioned before in this thread. In April, he summed up the most recent discoveries, and about Friedman's Canadian study in particular he wrote:

The study pointed out that Cuba had an extensive mosquito-spraying program, which was intensified close to the time of the reported attack to deal with the Zika virus. Some of the measures obtained in the study were consistent with a neurotoxic effect that could be due to the ingredients in the pesticides used in Cuba. As I suggested in my previous letter to the editor, such neurotoxins could affect the single arterial system that serves the brainstem and the inner ear. So a sonic cause is becoming less and less likely. However, as Friedman, et al., correctly noted, “Other causes cannot be ruled out.” More data and less speculation are needed. The first meeting of the NAS Committee was on Dec. 18, 2019, and the second meeting on Feb. 24, 2020. The committee has not published any reports to date, so the next evidence related to this on-going mystery will probably come when the NAS Committee issues its report sometime later this year.
Was There Really a ‘Sonic Attack’ in Cuba and China? (HearingJournal, April 2020)

 

[dann]

Article in the NYT about the inconsistencies in the way the State Department has treated the alleged attacks on U.S. diplomats and spies in Cuba, China and Russia:

American officials in China, Cuba and Russia say U.S. agencies are concealing the true extent of the episodes, leaving colleagues vulnerable to hostile actions abroad.
(…)
One of the biggest questions centers on whether Trump administration officials believe that Mr. Lenzi and other diplomats in China experienced the same mysterious affliction as dozens of diplomats and spies at the American Embassy in Cuba in 2016 and 2017, which came to be known as Havana Syndrome. American employees in the two countries reported hearing strange sounds, followed by headaches, dizziness, blurred vision and memory loss.

But the government’s treatment of the episodes has been radically different. The State Department, which oversaw the cases, has produced inconsistent assessments of patients and events, ignored outside medical diagnoses and withheld basic information from Congress, a New York Times investigation found.

In Cuba, the Trump administration withdrew most of its staff members from the embassy and issued a travel warning, saying U.S. diplomats had experienced “targeted attacks.” President Trump expelled 15 Cuban diplomats from Washington and started an independent review, though Cuba denied any involvement.
The administration took a softer approach with China. In May 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was the C.I.A. director during the Cuba events, told lawmakers that the medical details of one American official who had fallen ill in China were “very similar and entirely consistent” with the syndrome in Cuba. The administration evacuated more than a dozen federal employees and some of their family members.

The State Department soon retreated, labeling what happened in China as “health incidents.” While the officers in Cuba were placed on administrative leave for rehabilitation, those in China initially had to use sick days and unpaid leave, some officers and their lawyers say. And the State Department did not open an investigation into what happened in China.
U.S. Diplomats and Spies Battle Trump Administration Over Suspected Attacks (NYT, Oct. 19, 2020)

 

[dann]

From sonic attacks to directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy

The mysterious head injuries suffered by US diplomatic staff in China and Cuba that had been described as "sonic attacks" are consistent with the use of directed microwave energy, according to a report published Saturday by the National Academy of Sciences.
"Overall, directed pulsed RF (radio frequency) energy, especially in those with the distinct early manifestations, appears to be the most plausible mechanism in explaining these cases among those that the committee considered," the report said.
'Sonic attacks' suffered by US diplomats likely caused by microwave energy, government study says (CNN, Dec. 5, 2020)

I have not yet read the full report, but sentences like these:

after considering the information available to it and a set of possible mechanisms, the committee felt (!) that many of the distinctive and acute signs, symptoms and observations reported by DOS employees are consistent with the effects of directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy. (...) Other (!) mechanisms may (!) play reinforcing or additive effects ...

and these:

The committee is left with a number of concerns. Even though it was not in a position to assess or comment on how these DOS cases arose, such as a possible source of directed, pulsed RF energy and the exact circumstances of the putative exposures, the mere consideration of such a scenario raises grave concerns about a world with disinhibited malevolent actors and new tools for causing harm to others, as if the U.S. government does not have its hands full already with naturally occurring threats.

make me wonder how the hell the CNN can come up with a sentence like this one:

Most of the documented attacks came in 2016 and 2017, though there were a handful of reported incidents after that as well.

There obviously never were any documented attacks. The report is based on an imaginary scenario including imaginary disinhibited malevolent actors and their new imaginary tools for causing harm to others.

The symptoms of the victims don't even match up with their imaginary directed, pulsed RF energy device ("patient clinical heterogeneity", from the Summary!), which is why they need to bring in the imaginary other 'mechanisms' and their reinforcing or additive effects.

It makes me wonder how many of the committee members were directly appointed by the Trump administration and its State Department.

 

[dann]

The NAS report does not definitively conclude that the energy was delivered intentionally but also does not rule out the possibility that a weapon was used to deliver the energy.
There is also no evidence to definitively say if any foreign power was behind the microwave energy, though NBC previously reported that intelligence officials considered Russia a prime suspect.
A source familiar with the symptoms told NBC News, which was the first to report on the findings from NAS, that the CIA had determined Russian operatives who had worked on microwave weapons were in the same cities as CIA agents at the time they began experiencing the neurological symptoms.
Mysterious illness targeting US diplomats in China, Cuba likely the result of microwave energy: report (TheHill, Dec. 5, 2020)

And what about the crickets? Won't somebody please think of the crickets?

 

[dann]

Wikipedia's page about the 'Havana Syndrome' was updated a couple of hours ago and now claims:

The Hotel Nacional in Havana is one of the locations the alleged attacks occurred.[1]
Symptoms Hearing strange grating noises, headache, hearing loss, memory loss, and nausea
Causes Likely caused by directed microwaves[2]
Havana syndrome (Wikipedia)

Footnote 2 is a link to an article from BBC News today: 'Havana syndrome' likely caused by directed microwaves - US report, but the addition "- US report" in the BBC title makes it clear how bloody unlikely it is that the brain damage of the US spies and diplomats was caused by directed microwaves.

 

[dann]

I hope that some serious journalists will do a little more than just copy-paste the AP story about the new report from the National Academy of Sciences, An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, but I haven't seen any so far.

However, when googling it, I noticed that Havana Syndrome - Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria by Robert W. Baloh and Robert E. Bartholomew has been published.

 

[Darat]

I hope that some serious journalists will do a little more than just copy-paste the AP story about the new report from the National Academy of Sciences, An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies, but I haven't seen any so far.

However, when googling it, I noticed that Havana Syndrome - Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria by Robert W. Baloh and Robert E. Bartholomew has been published.

I’ll add that to my watch list - when it comes down in price I’ll buy it.

 

[Darat]

dann - Meant to post a thanks a few times, I’ve found this topic to be fascinating and your links and posts have been a superb resource.

 

[dann]

You already did post a thanks.
You can rent the Kindle version of the Bartholomew/Baloh book for $2.82. I don't know if they have a similar option on .co.uk.

 

[Checkmite]

It makes me wonder how many of the committee members were directly appointed by the Trump administration and its State Department.

This is one of the more irritating aspects of your style of argumentation. It is of course trivially easy and well within your capability to actually find out as a matter of simple fact how many - if any - of the committee members were political appointees; but you are far more interested in insinuating for rhetorical purposes that the committee and its report is politically tainted by "wondering how many" than you are in verifying whether it's actually true that there were in fact any at all (spoiler alert: there weren't).

If you had any amount of background knowledge about what the National Academy of Sciences actually is, you'd know that your insinuation doesn't make sense. The Academy can be asked for independent advice or assistance by the US government (indeed that's one of its primary purposes) but is itself a private, non-governmental organization. The current president attained her position before Trump became president.
The members of the committee that produced the report in question are named in the report itself and are all Academy members or members of equivalent foreign bodies, and Academy membership is not "appointed" by the Trump administration or any other political or governmental body. Potential members can only be nominated by existing members and they are elected only by the membership at large. And there are some fairly comprehensive requirements for a nomination as far as publishing and scientific achievement goes. Being elected to the National Academy of Sciences is what amounts to the pinnacle of a scientific career in the United States; the Academy aren't just a random collection of PhD's, they're essentially the most accomplished American scientists in their respective fields of research.

No source is absolutely unimpeachable when it comes to scientific studies; but the NAS collectively has a combination of expertise, achievement, and experience that makes what they have to say worth seriously considering, and not flippantly dismissing on the basis of snippets from press reports that sound like they may contradict what you have already decided to be true.

 

[dann]

This is one of the more irritating aspects of your style of argumentation. It is of course trivially easy and well within your capability to actually find out as a matter of simple fact how many - if any - of the committee members were political appointees; but you are far more interested in insinuating for rhetorical purposes that the committee and its report is politically tainted by "wondering how many" than you are in verifying whether it's actually true that there were in fact any at all (spoiler alert: there weren't).

I truly wonder, and I don't do so for "rhetorical purposes". Since the election, Trump has been busy placing his people everywhere. I wouldn't know how "to actually find out as a matter of simple fact how many - if any - of the committee members were political appointees."

If you had any amount of background knowledge about what the National Academy of Sciences actually is, you'd know that your insinuation doesn't make sense. The Academy can be asked for independent advice or assistance by the US government (indeed that's one of its primary purposes) but is itself a private, non-governmental organization. The current president attained her position before Trump became president.

I don't have "any amount of background knowledge about what the National Academy of Sciences actually is" at all.

The members of the committee that produced the report in question are named in the report itself and are all Academy members or members of equivalent foreign bodies, and Academy membership is not "appointed" by the Trump administration or any other political or governmental body. Potential members can only be nominated by existing members and they are elected only by the membership at large. And there are some fairly comprehensive requirements for a nomination as far as publishing and scientific achievement goes. Being elected to the National Academy of Sciences is what amounts to the pinnacle of a scientific career in the United States; the Academy aren't just a random collection of PhD's, they're essentially the most accomplished American scientists in their respective fields of research.

I never claimed that they were "just a random collection of PhD's." On the contrary.
You are obviously in awe of the organization. I am not. When I'm not, it is based on what I have read of and about this report so far and on total ignorance of the organization behind it.

No source is absolutely unimpeachable when it comes to scientific studies; but the NAS collectively has a combination of expertise, achievement, and experience that makes what they have to say worth seriously considering, and not flippantly dismissing on the basis of snippets from press reports that sound like they may contradict what you have already decided to be true.

My dismissal isn't based on "snippets from press reports," but it is obvious that the press reports "contradict what I have already" come to think is true based on all the things I have read so far. In the case of the press reports, I attribute it to copy-pasting. So far, the newspaper reports seem to have simply been based on the AP summary. That is always the easiest thing to do, isn't it?! To copy-paste the snippets from press reports.
However, the snippets I presented you with in post 726 weren't from the press reports:

I have not yet read the full report, but sentences like these:

after considering the information available to it and a set of possible mechanisms, the committee felt (!) that many of the distinctive and acute signs, symptoms and observations reported by DOS employees are consistent with the effects of directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy. (...) Other (!) mechanisms may (!) play reinforcing or additive effects ...

and these:

The committee is left with a number of concerns. Even though it was not in a position to assess or comment on how these DOS cases arose, such as a possible source of directed, pulsed RF energy and the exact circumstances of the putative exposures, the mere consideration of such a scenario raises grave concerns about a world with disinhibited malevolent actors and new tools for causing harm to others, as if the U.S. government does not have its hands full already with naturally occurring threats.

make me wonder how the hell the CNN can come up with a sentence like this one:

Most of the documented attacks came in 2016 and 2017, though there were a handful of reported incidents after that as well.

There obviously never were any documented attacks. The report is based on an imaginary scenario including imaginary disinhibited malevolent actors and their new imaginary tools for causing harm to others.

The symptoms of the victims don't even match up with their imaginary directed, pulsed RF energy device ("patient clinical heterogeneity", from the Summary!), which is why they need to bring in the imaginary other 'mechanisms' and their reinforcing or additive effects.

So I have presented you with 'snippets' from the report and complained about how the media, in this case the CNN, have reported it.

That alone is what made "me wonder how many of the committee members were directly appointed by the Trump administration and its State Department."

Does it sound like good, reliable, evidence-based science to you?!

When an alleged scientific committee comes up with science fiction like this, "the mere consideration of such a scenario raises grave concerns about a world with disinhibited malevolent actors and new tools for causing harm to others," it raises grave concerns in me about a world with disinhibited malevolent scientists who don't even seem to let the facts of the case they were supposed to study 'inhibit' them.

 

[Checkmite]

I truly wonder, and I don't do so for "rhetorical purposes". Since the election, Trump has been busy placing his people everywhere. I wouldn't know how "to actually find out as a matter of simple fact how many - if any - of the committee members were political appointees."

Give me a break. You're typing these words on a web browser that is connected to the internet, so you are aware of the existence of the internet and how to use it, which is the only knowledge you need. In a previous post you even managed to, completely independently, search for and find an actual link directly to the report in question; but finding out the most basic publicly-available information about the body that produced it is just beyond your ken? You can't have been "wondering" too hard, if you couldn't be bothered to make even the most trivial effort to answer your own question.

I don't have "any amount of background knowledge about what the National Academy of Sciences actually is" at all.

As I said, that much is painfully clear.

I never claimed that they were "just a random collection of PhD's." On the contrary.
You are obviously in awe of the organization. I am not. When I'm not, it is based on what I have read of and about this report so far and on total ignorance of the organization behind it.

It's not about having any "awe" of this organization; it's simply about making at least the most basic attempt to know what the hell I'm talking about before I open my mouth to criticize (or apply fingers to keyboard, or however as the case may be). If you have enough self-awareness to know that you are in "total ignorance of the organization behind it", that is probably a useful clue that your flippant dismissal is likewise misinformed and some diligence, or at least a modicum of practical curiosity, would help you form a better or at least a more informed opinion. Insinuating that because the reporting body's conclusion doesn't jibe with your lay opinion on the subject likely means they're either incompetent or made up of "Trump administration appointees" who skewed the results is similar in kind to the thought process that goes, "I personally don't think more people would have voted against Trump than for him, therefore the election numbers have to be the result of massive fraud."

When an alleged scientific committee comes up with science fiction like this, "the mere consideration of such a scenario raises grave concerns about a world with disinhibited malevolent actors and new tools for causing harm to others," it raises grave concerns in me about a world with disinhibited malevolent scientists who don't even seem to let the facts of the case they were supposed to study 'inhibit' them.

This opinion of yours is ignorant. You're not even in possession of the "facts of the case" beyond what you've read in sensationalist news articles that you already recognize (or should recognize) are flawed, which makes you frankly unqualified to make the judgements you are making about how consistent the report's conclusions are with said facts.

 

[dann]

Give me a break. You're typing these words on a web browser that is connected to the internet, so you are aware of the existence of the internet and how to use it, which is the only knowledge you need. In a previous post you even managed to, completely independently, search for and find an actual link directly to the report in question; but finding out the most basic publicly-available information about the body that produced it is just beyond your ken? You can't have been "wondering" too hard, if you couldn't be bothered to make even the most trivial effort to answer your own question.
As I said, that much is painfully clear.

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.

It's not about having any "awe" of this organization; it's simply about making at least the most basic attempt to know what the hell I'm talking about before I open my mouth to criticize (or apply fingers to keyboard, or however as the case may be). If you have enough self-awareness to know that you are in "total ignorance of the organization behind it", that is probably a useful clue that your flippant dismissal is likewise misinformed and some diligence, or at least a modicum of practical curiosity, would help you form a better or at least a more informed opinion. Insinuating that because the reporting body's conclusion doesn't jibe with your lay opinion on the subject likely means they're either incompetent or made up of "Trump administration appointees" who skewed the results is similar in kind to the thought process that goes, "I personally don't think more people would have voted against Trump than for him, therefore the election numbers have to be the result of massive fraud."

Much like you in the case of the National Academy of Science, the awe of Trump voters for their president is so big that they don't need to analyze the words that come out of his mouth. All they need to know is that the words are Trump's so they must be true.

This opinion of yours is ignorant. You're not even in possession of the "facts of the case" beyond what you've read in sensationalist news articles that you already recognize (or should recognize) are flawed, which makes you frankly unqualified to make the judgements you are making about how consistent the report's conclusions are with said facts.

The facts of the case are that the "sensationalist news articles" are based on a flawed report, which is why one of my quotations from that report appears in many of those articles.
As it is often the case, the report itself, if you go into a little more detail, is not as sensationalist as the sensationalist preface to it, which some of the news articles have discovered, but this does not prevent the others from basing their headlines exclusively on the sensationalist parts of the report - as I assume they were intended to. If the National Academy of Science didn't want that to happen, I assume they wouldn't have provided the journalists with that preface.

It is possible that your appeal to authority in other contexts might not be an appeal to false authority, but in the case of my quotations from the report it is.
If you have anything to say about those quotations, I would be interested in hearing it.
Your admiration for the authority is utterly uninteresting and irrelevant.

 

[dann]

Backlash!

But scientists who collaborated on the National Academies of Sciences report, commissioned by the US State Department, say that the finding about possible microwave attacks is far from conclusive. Outside experts on microwaves and the mysterious “Havana syndrome,” meanwhile, dismissed it as implausible. One scientist dubbed it “science fiction.”
“In many ways, what we are saying is the US government needs to take this on in a more deliberate and comprehensive manner,” said panel chair David Relman, an infectious disease expert at Stanford. “What is needed is an all-of-government effort to not just study what happened but to anticipate what the future holds.”
The State Department praised the release, saying in a statement released to BuzzFeed News that the report “can add to the data and analyses that may help us come to an eventual conclusion as to what transpired.”
(...)
However, experts in both microwaves and group psychology were highly critical of the report’s conclusions.
“The report does not make a coherent argument why microwaves should be involved,” said University of Pennsylvania bioengineer Kenneth Foster, who first described the mechanism behind the Frey effect in 1974. The effect requires very high power levels to produce barely audible sounds, he said, and it’s not known to cause injuries. “Maybe someone went to the trouble to truck in a large microwave transmitter to cause the employees to hear ‘clicks,’ but there are simpler ways to harass people than that,” he said.
Scientists Are Slamming a Report Saying Microwave Attacks Could Have Caused ‘Havana Syndrome’ In US Diplomats (BuzzFeedNews, Dec. 7, 2020)

 

[dann]

I’ll add that to my watch list - when it comes down in price I’ll buy it.

Good review of the book: The Curious Case of ‘Havana Syndrome’ (NationalReview, Aug. 22, 2020)

 

[dann]

For those of you who are interested in a discussion of the technical side of a "directed, pulsed radio frequency (RF) energy" weapon, I can recommend the reader comments to the article, US diplomats’ brain injuries may be from covert microwave attack, experts say (ArsTechnica, Dec. 10, 2020).

The writer of this article, unlike the writer of the BuzzFeedNews article, has not asked other researchers for comments, so it is basically a presentation of the report and its conclusions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

No source is absolutely unimpeachable when it comes to scientific studies; but the NAS collectively has a combination of expertise, achievement, and experience that makes what they have to say worth seriously considering, and not flippantly dismissing on the basis of snippets from press reports that sound like they may contradict what you have already decided to be true.

So did the CDC before Trump stuck his nose in their business.