Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Protected edit request on 11 May 2024 (5)

The section under "2022" needs to be massively expanded to account for the most comprehensive study to date which is merely recited (incorrectly) in one sentence "On February 1, 2022, a declassified US intelligence report (IC Experts Panel on Anomalous Health Incidents) called pulsed electromagnetic energy and ultrasound plausible causes and said that concealable devices exist that could produce the observed symptoms."

Change "declassified US intelligence report (IC Experts Panel on Anomalous Health Incidents)" to "summary of the IC Experts Panel's Report on Anomalous Heath Incidents". Note that this was not a US intelligence report. Nor was it a declassified product (that was only released in March 2023 after a FOIA request) but a summary of an experts panel's study.

Change "called pulsed electromagnetic energy and ultrasound plausible causes" to "called pulsed electromagnetic energy a plausible cause, found that psychosocial factors cannot explain the core characteristics," Note the report (page vii) claims that ultrasound is only plausible "in close-access scenarios" whereas it says (page vi) "Electromagnetic energy, particularly pulsed signals in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics, although information gaps exist."

All of the following paragraphs should be added under the "2022" section after the paragraph beginning the discussion about this IC Experts Panel report.

Add the following paragraph: A redacted version of the full IC Experts Panel report, dated September 2022, was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act in March 2023. The IC Experts Panel found elevated biomarkers in the blood in some affected individuals indicating neural cell injury: (page 2) "The finding that the elevation in these well-characterized biomarkers in some affected individuals is transient, rather than sustained, is noteworthy. Researchers have shown that these same biomarkers are released from brain cells in response to mild traumatic brain injury and concussion. The time-course of evaluation in some AHI patients matches the time-course after mild traumatic brain injury and concussion."

8 Requirements for having Mass Psychogenic Illness

Add the following paragraph: The Experts Panel found that the combination of the four characteristics associated with AHIs is (page 5) "distinctly unusual" and that "Several aspects of this unique neurosensory syndrome make it unlikely to be caused by functional neurological disorder rather than structural damage." As an example, the Panel states "location dependence and sudden onset and offset of sensations and symptoms" support the notion that the stimulus is "spatially and temporally discrete" and not continuous like a functional neurological disorder. Similarly, "The perception of sound and pain within only one ear suggests the stimulation of its mechanoreceptors" which is inconsistent with functional neurological disorder.

Add the following paragraph: Some studies have indicated electromagnetic energy would necessarily cause bulk heating of tissue that would be detectable by the victim, however the IC Experts Panel (page 22) evaluated five potential pathways of electromagnetic energy, particularly at the radiofrequency level, and distinguished bulk heating from the four others in the frequency-power parameter space, as shown in Figure 7 below.

Five Potential Pathways Involving Electromagnetic Energy

Add the following paragraph: The IC Experts Panel found that (page 22) "In comparison to radiofrequency signals that are continuous, signals that are pulsed would allow for smaller, more concealable sources and antennas at a given power level, would enhance propagation and tissue penetration, and would reduce the likelihood of detection." Hence, the Panel evaluated each of the above five pathways as pulsed-radiofrequencies. The Panel found that (page 24) bulk heating was not plausible due to the lack of heating effects felt by the victims, but that "Thermo-acoustic effects are a plausible pathway" and that (page 25) "Researchers have suggested mechanical damage can result if the pulse has a sufficiently high-power density and is short compared to the reverberation time in the skull or if the pulse shape is adjusted to optimize biological effects". The IC Panel further suggested (page 25) that the microwave-auditory effect is an implausible pathway on its own due to a lack of possibility of damage but that "under certain conditions, it could appear as a side effect of any of the other four pathways, resulting in the perception of sound in some individuals."

Biological Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Energy

Add the following paragraph: The Panel noted that a damaging pulsed electromagnetic affect could be easily achieved in principle: (page B-5) "A thermo-acoustic (traumatic brain injury-like) biological effect requires only a 1 W generator in principle. This power requirement makes a much smaller transmitting system, perhaps battery operated, more feasible. If the transmitter can produce even shorter pulses, the range might extend from 50 m to 150 m."

Finally add the paragraph: The Panel in their report in an Appendix (page H-1) also reported on significant disagreement with the JASON advisory panel and their 2021 findings. In particular, the two groups' "main disagreement concerns electromagnetic signals as a possible mechanism" but the details on their disagreement were redacted in their entirety." Coreyman317 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus for this. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Then let's form a consensus through discussion and debate here. I think it's fair that we should expand on the largest and most comprehensive study to date (because of this IC Experts Panel's access to information unlike the NASEM report, despite reaching the same conclusions) and explain its findings. I was quite long winded here but I thought it was a good starting place. The Wikipedia page for Havana Syndrome, I think purposefully, only summarizes this landmark report in one sentence without fully elucidating its findings -- like that mass psychogenic illness is ruled out, as seen in Figure 12 provided above. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is just a (heavily redacted) document out of US intelligence. Not usable except as covered by reliable secondary sources, and irrelevant when we have recent peer-reviewed science to hand. Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This document is not "out of US intelligence" though. It's an expert panel of scientists from inside and outside the government. It's not a US intelligence product. What peer reviewed science do we have on hand, besides the 2018 JAMA imaging studies and the 2024 NIH study? You're saying the largest systematic study to date of Havana Syndrome is "not usable"? Hmm can't imagine why'd you say that and immediately refer to Bartholomew's review articles which you mischaracterize as science. You accused me of pushing a particular POV earlier... Coreyman317 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We have review articles conforming to Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS standards (you seem to think reviews are not science, but in Wikipedia research is largely irrelevant). Bon courage (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't "seem to think reviews are not science" it's literally a fact. Science is defined as forming a hypothesis and gathering new data to test it. Explain how reviews follow this process, especially ones that repeat themselves while not actually analyzing new literate since none exists.

The IC Experts Panel report is not published research though is it?. It's a review of the cases and the existing literature surrounding the mainly neurological/physical principles at play. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

From Salon, it seems to be one of several contradictory sources floating around in US intelligence circles. Anyway, it's of no use here without decent secondary coverage. Bon courage (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not from Salon. Why are you mischaracterizing the source of this study? Wdym "floating around in US intelligence circles"? We've already established that this is not a US intelligence community product, it's a panel of scientists asked by the IC to study this issue and did.

It is itself secondary coverage, I'm not sure what you mean. See here: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

This IC Experts Panel is a systematic review of the literature surrounding the relevant issues (neurology, psychology, biological physics, epidemiology etc) and the cases themselves to determine the most likely cause. There is no original research here they didn't conduct experiments and collect data. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's a systematic review now is it? How is that? Bon courage (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

How isn't it? It's a "scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic."

It's panel of scientists who review the literature on the relevant topics pertaining to Havana Syndrome (a scholarly synthesis) using critical methods such a statistics, parameter space exclusion, and categorizing research as being supportive or not of different hypotheses (critical methods to identify, define, and assess research). Coreyman317 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point WP:CIR, if you think an IC report is a systematic review! Bon courage (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What IC report? There is no IC report being discussed here. Why do you keep playing word games and essentially lying? I just showed how this IC Experts Panel report is a systematic review and you responded with ad hominem lol.

You keep desperately trying to portray this report as an intelligence community product. How come? Coreyman317 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the "declassified report prepared for the director of national intelligence" that Salon refers to. It's not a systematic review, obviously (if you want to confirm that ask at WT:MED but at that point you might risk getting blocked for trolling). Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes this report was made for the US intelligence community, as are plenty of pieces of research funded by IARPA, for example. That does not make them intelligence community products, right?

Salon has almost nothing to do with this source yet you keep associating them with it, why? They FOIA'd the report. Got it. That's it.

Why isn't it a systematic review? I went to the page you suggested and copy and pasted the definition of systematic review and showed how this IC Experts Panel Report meets all requirements in the definition, lol. Coreyman317 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

In case you really don't know systematic review are invariably entitled "systematic review" and are "systematic" in having a formal stated mechanism for identifying, sifting and assessing existing literature. A panel "report" that considers questions based on primary data in the light of the views of its authors, is not a systematic review. Bon courage (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean I do actually do science for a living, particularly mathematical physics, but sure.

Anyways, every characterization you just made of the IC Experts Panel report is wrong. They assess patient level data provided to them through imaging studies, etc and patient history. They are not gathering data themselves, so that makes their consideration of these sources "secondary".

You say "in the light of the views of its authors" is wrong. They systematically review the literature on each possible causative factor: electromagnetic sources, psychological sources, environmental sources, viral sources, etc.

There is no formal mechanism ever in systematic reviews. They hodge-podge together a list of the literature, usually through online search, and manually/semi manually comb out false positives, irrelevant studies, or poor ones. This is anything but formal but very very subjective. Ha Coreyman317 (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What does the 'IC' in 'IC Experts Panel' stand for again? MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying if the Intelligence Community calls on a panel of inside government and outside experts to examine an issue, it's a US intelligence product instead of that expert panel's product?

The fact that this study contradicts the current stated IC/CIA conclusion on this matter weighs further against this being a document out of "US intelligence." Coreyman317 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying IC stands for 'Intelligence Community' but it's not a product of the Intelligence Community? How confusing. MrOllie (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What's confusing about it? So interesting what you're doing here...!

Are you asserting that the IC Experts Panel is a product of the intelligence community because the intelligence community called on the panel to be formed and study this matter?

Once again, the intelligence community itself publicly contradicts this Experts Panel, which you are implying is an intelligence community product. Coreyman317 (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to this level of speculation I don't think it is DUE to add more detail than is there.

Does the report mention anything about the victims experiencing any heat? The part I read mentioned a thermo-electric effect, but that is different than a victim experiencing a sensation of heat while being bombarded with EM radiation. So much here is built on the misconception that microwaves heat from the inside out. They don't. If none of the victims felt heat, it would be hard to explain how enough energy got into their brain to do any damage. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

New source

• Connolly M, Hawkshaw MJ, Sataloff RT (April 2024). "Havana syndrome: Overview for otolaryngologists". Am J Otolaryngol (Review). 45 (4): 104332. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104332. PMID 38663328.

Not much new, but good on symptoms. As regard cause, it could be a lot of things (says the source) e.g.

With many potential causes of Havana Syndrome and the fact that American diplomats were involved, the US government, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), investigated potential causes for the symptoms of these individuals. The DNI reported that Havana Syndrome is not a novel clinical disease but could be a collection of known diseases such as traumatic brain injury or PPPD. A mass psychogenic illness event was proposed as a possible etiology, but that suggestion is difficult to prove. The NIH is continuing to research to determine the causative agent and the criteria for diagnosis of the disease [8]. Other medical conditions can cause similar symptoms and are not caused by Havana Syndrome or associated with the same patient population.

Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good WP:MEDRS review. Definitely can be used to strengthen the causes and symptoms sections. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you share this article? TinyClayMan (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I could mail you the pdf. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks good to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's available through the WP:WL. Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@TinyClayMan I think BC meant the WP:Wikipedia Library where you can access the full report for free. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

To summarise the main conclusions (quotes from the abstract):

Symptoms: "a sound at the onset of symptoms, a mix of neurologic and otologic symptoms, and persistent symptoms that lasted for months."

Cause: "Theories of the cause of Havana Syndrome have led to no conclusive answer." and "the cause of Havana Syndrome [is] still unknown"

We might also use this source for a new "Controversy" section as it discusses the various positions and the debate within the academic community. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The cause is, according to all the reviews, still unknown. Shouldn't the first sentence in the "causes"-section state this clearly, before delving into possible and/or plausible causes? Draken Bowser (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser That would be appreciated, thanks. (Unfortunately, I don't have access to WP:LIBRARY yet) TinyClayMan (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)