These claims have not been demonstrated
November 28, 2019 8:07 PM Subscribe
An Open Letter to the Diplomats With "Havana Syndrome" [Robert Bartholomew in Psychology Today]
Part of the problem is that most people are not experts on sonic devices, microwave weapons, or insecticide fumigation—and this includes journalists and many scientists in other fields. We live in a world where we must rely on experts—especially medical specialists. But what happens when a small group of scientists leads us astray?
It's also called Mass Psychogenic Illness.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:17 PM on November 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:17 PM on November 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
Hmmmm, would like to hear the rebuttal from other experts first as dismissing things as all in your head has a history of not always being exactly scientific either.
posted by blue shadows at 9:07 PM on November 28, 2019 [29 favorites]
posted by blue shadows at 9:07 PM on November 28, 2019 [29 favorites]
What's fascinating about this is that U.S. diplomats in China are reporting the same symptoms. It would suggest that the Havana Syndrome is indeed caused by an MPI because why on Earth would a group of attackers keep subjecting these highly visible targets in different countries? What could their motivation possibly be by now?
posted by Foci for Analysis at 10:42 PM on November 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 10:42 PM on November 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
If there's one thing that psychologists—or at least a significant subset of them—love, it's telling people that their illness is mass hysteria. Why they feel qualified to diagnose people they've never met and have certainly never examined with a mental illness from afar is beyond me. They aren't doctors, so it's not medical malpractice, but it should be treated as the same.
I don't know what Havana syndrome is or isn't, but I'm also certain that some uninvolved non-doctor (who appears to be a sociologist) doesn't either. Let's let the people who are involved and actually studying the patients in question work it out. I'm certain they are considering these kinds of explanations. And here, while speculating wildly about mass hysteria, the author wants to chide people who are actually dealing with the patients for not being scientific enough and speculating too much? Did no one notice the irony?
As someone who suffers from a (very much real) disease that has been dismissed by psychologists, I can say that they are eager to do so against plenty of evidence, they don't seem to care about the harm they cause (because in their minds the disease isn't real) and it's pretty much impossible to have an evidence-based discussion when the starting assumption is that everything can be explained by some kind of hysteria. This kind of BS has done so much harm to so many people over so many years. It's unconscionable to idly diagnose patients you have no contact with as suffering from mass hysteria—and it reflects very poorly on the field of psychology that they allow this to happen over and over.
posted by ssg at 11:08 PM on November 28, 2019 [40 favorites]
I don't know what Havana syndrome is or isn't, but I'm also certain that some uninvolved non-doctor (who appears to be a sociologist) doesn't either. Let's let the people who are involved and actually studying the patients in question work it out. I'm certain they are considering these kinds of explanations. And here, while speculating wildly about mass hysteria, the author wants to chide people who are actually dealing with the patients for not being scientific enough and speculating too much? Did no one notice the irony?
As someone who suffers from a (very much real) disease that has been dismissed by psychologists, I can say that they are eager to do so against plenty of evidence, they don't seem to care about the harm they cause (because in their minds the disease isn't real) and it's pretty much impossible to have an evidence-based discussion when the starting assumption is that everything can be explained by some kind of hysteria. This kind of BS has done so much harm to so many people over so many years. It's unconscionable to idly diagnose patients you have no contact with as suffering from mass hysteria—and it reflects very poorly on the field of psychology that they allow this to happen over and over.
posted by ssg at 11:08 PM on November 28, 2019 [40 favorites]
I think what he says seems entirely plausible, but...
we are always told not to pay attention to some random journalist, but to look for articles that have been peer reviewed in respected journals.
He mentions four studies and:
People involved in all four studies have remarked that to label victims as suffering from mass psychogenic illness, aka mass hysteria, is an insult.
Yet he insists that mass hysteria is a fact, not an opinion:
This is not an opinion. Facts are not a partisan issue. These observations are indisputable.
So I guess the advice now is to ignore what is being said in respected, peer reviewed articles and instead we should listen to random journalist because apparently what random journalists like him tell you are indisputable facts.
posted by eye of newt at 11:31 PM on November 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
we are always told not to pay attention to some random journalist, but to look for articles that have been peer reviewed in respected journals.
He mentions four studies and:
People involved in all four studies have remarked that to label victims as suffering from mass psychogenic illness, aka mass hysteria, is an insult.
Yet he insists that mass hysteria is a fact, not an opinion:
This is not an opinion. Facts are not a partisan issue. These observations are indisputable.
So I guess the advice now is to ignore what is being said in respected, peer reviewed articles and instead we should listen to random journalist because apparently what random journalists like him tell you are indisputable facts.
posted by eye of newt at 11:31 PM on November 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
The author is not a scientist or a full time researcher. He is a high school teacher in New Zealand.
posted by polymodus at 12:34 AM on November 29, 2019 [25 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 12:34 AM on November 29, 2019 [25 favorites]
i find the responses thus far surprising. the author is not saying that it's all in people's heads, but that one's head is outside of one's head, which is to say in such illnesses when there's no clear etiology one can point to somatization. to make reference to somatization doesn't discount the sufferer's illness or symptoms. it is fully possible that there are other environmental reasons for havana syndrome and that they should continue to be explored. but saying that bringing in "mass hysteria" (though a regrettably anachronistic term) discounts or invalidates those afflicted fundamentally misunderstands the nature of somatic illnesses and in fact itself invalidates the reality of those who suffer somatic symptoms as being unreal because ungrounded in "external" causes and so on. while as i said surely another materially identifiable cause could turn up, you all are sounding a bit like chinese restaurant syndrome apologists
posted by LeviQayin at 12:59 AM on November 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by LeviQayin at 12:59 AM on November 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
His essay would have been received better if his intellectual approach was more, well here's a possibility that their (non-armchair) doctors might have overlooked, and here are some ways to deal with causal elimination and theory falsification in order to figure out the truth.
Nobody is objecting to the possibility that it could be some kind of workplace PTSD or stress unique to their situation, or have social dynamics like what happened with white people's fear of MSG. This is the 21st century, medical and psychological science has largely moved onto a bio-psycho-social model. What people are objecting to are other aspects of the piece and the message it sends, and it would be a lot more respectful to not attack people in this thread as nonsensical apologists.
posted by polymodus at 2:40 AM on November 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
Nobody is objecting to the possibility that it could be some kind of workplace PTSD or stress unique to their situation, or have social dynamics like what happened with white people's fear of MSG. This is the 21st century, medical and psychological science has largely moved onto a bio-psycho-social model. What people are objecting to are other aspects of the piece and the message it sends, and it would be a lot more respectful to not attack people in this thread as nonsensical apologists.
posted by polymodus at 2:40 AM on November 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
His writing is sloppy. He is mostly saying that other explanations have serious problems and we ought to consider mass hysteria as a likely possiblity. And that a diagnosis of mass hysteria should not be considered a dismissal or denial that the people had real symptoms.
But some of his rhetoric makes it sound like he has somehow demonstrated that mass hysteria is the correct explanation, which obviously he has not and is in no position to do so.
posted by straight at 4:34 AM on November 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
But some of his rhetoric makes it sound like he has somehow demonstrated that mass hysteria is the correct explanation, which obviously he has not and is in no position to do so.
posted by straight at 4:34 AM on November 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
I'm confident that Havana Syndrome is adequately explained by documents leaked from the Federal Bureau of Control
posted by Merus at 7:11 AM on November 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Merus at 7:11 AM on November 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
It's not hard to imagine that people under constant surveillance would experience something unexplained. For example, what if the Russians were testing an undetectable frequency in their new spy equipment and it produced headaches? Of course we have no evidence of that, which is the whole point of spying, so the case can't be closed. The other problem is that they know they are under surveillance and take counter-measures that can't be disclosed, assuming anyone would even be in the loop on those, or that those counter-measures would ever be reported to anyone interested.
posted by Brian B. at 8:49 AM on November 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 8:49 AM on November 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I’m seeing a fair amount of sympathy in this passage:
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:11 AM on November 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
Mass psychogenic illness is neither a sign of weakness nor a mental disorder; it is a collective stress response. It happens to normal, healthy people. Everyone is susceptible, regardless of occupation, nationality, or education.The unfortunate connotations of “mass hysteria” aside, this is not dismissing the syndrome as “all in your head.”
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:11 AM on November 29, 2019 [6 favorites]
This is an odd article which apparently seeks to dismiss multiple peer-reviewed, scientific studies to forward his own theory on what is afflicting these folks. I know one of those afflicted and I can assure both the author and others that she is not suffering from PTSD or "mass psychogenic illness."
It is a legitimate, ongoing health issue. And it's both frustrating and minimizing to suggest that it is primarily an issue with a person's own stress response system. And this problem with an individual's stress response system just happened to affect dozens of different people, none of whom previously shared any sign of have deficiencies in their stress responses.
It also doesn't explain the Canada instance, since there is little stress in serving in Canada, as compared to a country like China or Cuba.
All in all, not much evidence offered here, but a lot of additional opinion.
posted by docjohn at 9:24 AM on November 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
It is a legitimate, ongoing health issue. And it's both frustrating and minimizing to suggest that it is primarily an issue with a person's own stress response system. And this problem with an individual's stress response system just happened to affect dozens of different people, none of whom previously shared any sign of have deficiencies in their stress responses.
It also doesn't explain the Canada instance, since there is little stress in serving in Canada, as compared to a country like China or Cuba.
All in all, not much evidence offered here, but a lot of additional opinion.
posted by docjohn at 9:24 AM on November 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
Chemical exposure is not an "exotic explanation," as the author asserts. Exposure causing tinnitus and hearing loss described by sufferers is called "ototoxicity;" here's the ototoxic list from OSHA.
It was ridiculously irresponsible to announce a secret commie sound weapon without considering that it might be the carpet glue. These are government facilities with access to US domestic shipping rates. Renovations happen simultaniously.
posted by head full of air at 9:36 AM on November 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
It was ridiculously irresponsible to announce a secret commie sound weapon without considering that it might be the carpet glue. These are government facilities with access to US domestic shipping rates. Renovations happen simultaniously.
posted by head full of air at 9:36 AM on November 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
Mass psychogenic illness (aka ‘mass hysteria’) and a long List of mass hysteria cases at WP.
The medium is the message: I wonder what Marshall McLuhan would have thought about today’s global social media, and its ability to spread perceived facts (and not-facts) so quickly.
posted by cenoxo at 12:07 PM on November 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
The medium is the message: I wonder what Marshall McLuhan would have thought about today’s global social media, and its ability to spread perceived facts (and not-facts) so quickly.
posted by cenoxo at 12:07 PM on November 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
but saying that bringing in "mass hysteria" (though a regrettably anachronistic term) discounts or invalidates those afflicted fundamentally misunderstands the nature of somatic illnesses and in fact itself invalidates the reality of those who suffer somatic symptoms as being unreal because ungrounded in "external" causes and so on.
The problem is not that calling something a somatic illness "discounts or invalidates", it's that it isn't an assertion backed up by scientific evidence. If something is diagnosed as a somatic illness and it actually has a biological basis, then the patients will be given improper treatment, research will not continue to untangle biological causes, and so on. You're basically talking about refusing appropriate medical care to people.
This line of argument is always the defence from the psychologists who armchair diagnose people with mass hysteria and it can be such a dishonest strawman with a really manipulative edge to it, which is very typical of how this sort of discussion unfolds. It's unfortunately part of an effort to paint those who suffer from a disease as unreliable in speaking about their own symptoms, illogical, unscientific, overly emotional, and so on. It's a well-worn path, which makes it all the more dispiriting to see.
posted by ssg at 4:25 PM on November 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
The problem is not that calling something a somatic illness "discounts or invalidates", it's that it isn't an assertion backed up by scientific evidence. If something is diagnosed as a somatic illness and it actually has a biological basis, then the patients will be given improper treatment, research will not continue to untangle biological causes, and so on. You're basically talking about refusing appropriate medical care to people.
This line of argument is always the defence from the psychologists who armchair diagnose people with mass hysteria and it can be such a dishonest strawman with a really manipulative edge to it, which is very typical of how this sort of discussion unfolds. It's unfortunately part of an effort to paint those who suffer from a disease as unreliable in speaking about their own symptoms, illogical, unscientific, overly emotional, and so on. It's a well-worn path, which makes it all the more dispiriting to see.
posted by ssg at 4:25 PM on November 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
It also doesn't explain the Canada instance, since there is little stress in serving in Canada, as compared to a country like China or Cuba.
Just for clarity, the Canadian connection is that somewhere around 15 Canadian diplomats, who were stationed in Havana, also suffered from Havana Syndrome (not that anyone had any problem in Canada).
posted by ssg at 4:29 PM on November 29, 2019
Just for clarity, the Canadian connection is that somewhere around 15 Canadian diplomats, who were stationed in Havana, also suffered from Havana Syndrome (not that anyone had any problem in Canada).
posted by ssg at 4:29 PM on November 29, 2019
The main reason I am sure mass psychogenic illness is the cause is because a)there's no other explanation that covers all the bases and satisfies Occam's Razor, and b) the Cubans would have to be fucking geniuses to come up with a weapon we don't understand, after all this time. And while the Cubans are neither any dumber or any smarter than anyone else, their ability to develop a super-weapon that remains mysterious and results in such a collection of nebulous symptoms is vanishingly small.
posted by adam hominem at 4:40 PM on November 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by adam hominem at 4:40 PM on November 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
"Havana syndrome" was probably caused by serial exposure to neurotoxic insecticide, at least among Canadian diplomats posted to Havana:
In the wake of the health problems experienced over the past three years, Global Affairs Canada commissioned a clinical study by a team of multidisciplinary researchers in Halifax, affiliated with the Brain Repair Centre, Dalhousie University and the Nova Scotia Health Authority. [...]posted by heatherlogan at 4:52 PM on November 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
The researchers identified a damaged region of the brain that is responsible for memory, concentration and sleep-and-wake cycle, among other things, and then looked at how this region could come to be injured.
"There are very specific types of toxins that affect these kinds of nervous systems ... and these are insecticides, pesticides, organophosphates — specific neurotoxins," said Friedman. "So that's why we generated the hypothesis that we then went to test in other ways." [...]
The researchers found that since 2016, Cuba launched an aggressive campaign against mosquitoes to stop the spread of the Zika virus.
The embassies actively sprayed in offices, as well as inside and outside diplomatic residences — sometimes five times more frequently than usual. Many times, spraying operations were carried out every two weeks, according to embassy records.
Toxicological analysis of the Canadian victims confirmed the presence of pyrethroid and organophosphate — two compounds found in fumigation products.
There was also a correlation between the individuals most affected by the symptoms and the number of fumigations that were performed at their residence.
The main reason I am sure mass psychogenic illness is the cause is because a)there's no other explanation that covers all the bases and satisfies Occam's Razor
If you think you can be sure of something because of Occam's Razor, you're applying it totally incorrectly.
posted by ssg at 5:09 PM on November 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
If you think you can be sure of something because of Occam's Razor, you're applying it totally incorrectly.
posted by ssg at 5:09 PM on November 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
which is to say in such illnesses when there's no clear etiology one can point to somatization.
Because modern medicine has covered all the possible physiological bases? Really?
Somatisation's main function, currently and historically, is as the God-of-the-gaps in medicine.
Frankly, I think it tells us far more about what goes on in the minds of those diagnosing it, than in those being diagnosed with it.
--------------------
Also, somatic means of the body, not of the mind. Words matter.
posted by Pouteria at 6:17 PM on November 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
Because modern medicine has covered all the possible physiological bases? Really?
Somatisation's main function, currently and historically, is as the God-of-the-gaps in medicine.
Frankly, I think it tells us far more about what goes on in the minds of those diagnosing it, than in those being diagnosed with it.
--------------------
Also, somatic means of the body, not of the mind. Words matter.
posted by Pouteria at 6:17 PM on November 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
I'm having a hard time rationalizing these two statements:
Metafilter: "The author is not a scientist or a full time researcher. He is a high school teacher in New Zealand."
PT: "Robert Bartholomew, Ph.D., is an American born medical sociologist, writer, journalist, human rights advocate."
posted by sneebler at 7:28 PM on November 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: "The author is not a scientist or a full time researcher. He is a high school teacher in New Zealand."
PT: "Robert Bartholomew, Ph.D., is an American born medical sociologist, writer, journalist, human rights advocate."
posted by sneebler at 7:28 PM on November 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
It's not too difficult to do so: the author is indeed currently a New Zealand high school teacher, and had spent some time as an academic sociologist.
I also note that his Wikipedia page claims he is an expert on mass hysteria, which I think merits scepticism regarding his claims - he has expertise in the area but he also has a bias towards this explanation. It's his task to explain why mass hysteria is a better explanation than, say, mosquito spray, a task that I'd guess many people in the thread don't believe he's managed.
posted by Merus at 11:07 PM on November 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
I also note that his Wikipedia page claims he is an expert on mass hysteria, which I think merits scepticism regarding his claims - he has expertise in the area but he also has a bias towards this explanation. It's his task to explain why mass hysteria is a better explanation than, say, mosquito spray, a task that I'd guess many people in the thread don't believe he's managed.
posted by Merus at 11:07 PM on November 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
Also, somatic means of the body, not of the mind. Words matter.
posted by Pouteria at 9:17 PM on November 29 [2 favorites +] [!]
They do indeed! From Wikipedia:
Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychological distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them. More commonly expressed, it is the generation of physical symptoms of a psychiatric condition such as anxiety.
posted by Ragged Richard at 6:44 AM on November 30, 2019
posted by Pouteria at 9:17 PM on November 29 [2 favorites +] [!]
They do indeed! From Wikipedia:
Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychological distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them. More commonly expressed, it is the generation of physical symptoms of a psychiatric condition such as anxiety.
posted by Ragged Richard at 6:44 AM on November 30, 2019
There really does need to be a better name for stuff that is "all in your head" -- our heads are powerful! We can create the symptoms we think should be there, we can make ourselves see ghosts, we can do all kinds of shit. I'd really like a term that's gentler/less judgmental (and easier to say than mass psychogenic whatever) coupled with more awareness of just how powerful the placebo/nocebo effects are.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 8:52 AM on November 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by pelvicsorcery at 8:52 AM on November 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Witch panics? Ritual satanic abuse? UFO sightings? Fainting diseases? Vaccines cause autism?
Sure, social psychology is complicated and strange.
Mysterious secret anti-American hyperscience superweapon?
Of course communists have this! In fact it's OFFENSIVE to suggest otherwise! Haven't you been paying attention to the past century's worth of nonstop anticommunist propag--I mean news?
posted by Krawczak at 12:02 PM on November 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
Sure, social psychology is complicated and strange.
Mysterious secret anti-American hyperscience superweapon?
Of course communists have this! In fact it's OFFENSIVE to suggest otherwise! Haven't you been paying attention to the past century's worth of nonstop anticommunist propag--I mean news?
posted by Krawczak at 12:02 PM on November 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
The author of this article doesn't see the irony of accusing previous studies of advancing theories with insufficient evidence followed by his own theory which is completely lacking any actual evidence. His line of reasoning seems to be that he has eliminated all other explanations and thus the only thing left is a mass psychogenic illness. He might even be correct, but he has not demonstrated that. This is an extremely irresponsible article.
posted by Edgewise at 12:20 PM on November 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Edgewise at 12:20 PM on November 30, 2019 [2 favorites]
It's not too difficult to do so: the author is indeed currently a New Zealand high school teacher, and had spent some time as an academic sociologist.
Thanks for that. I'm not sure being a high school teacher disqualifies him from writing articles in his previous field of work and expertise. But I live in a country where having been a hs teacher is often cited as a black mark on our prime minister's qualifications for his job.
I also note that his Wikipedia page claims he is an expert on mass hysteria, which I think merits scepticism regarding his claims - he has expertise in the area but he also has a bias towards this explanation.
An expert in a field prefers explanations related to that field? Is this like the consensus argument in climate change, where if you accept the consensus view, you're automatically disqualified as part of the hoax? This smacks of an attempt to dismiss the author's qualifications because he's somehow not a real scientist.
It's his task to explain why mass hysteria is a better explanation than, say, mosquito spray, a task that I'd guess many people in the thread don't believe he's managed.
I'm biased because, having followed this story for several years, I don't see any physical explanations emerging that are supported by anything but the flimsiest of evidence, and some kind of hysteria was always a possibility. That hasn't stopped the media from jumping on the various studies as they came out and proclaiming each of them the answer in turn. But mass hysteria is a real thing, and somebody was bound to make a better case for it as an explanation for the symptoms people in Havana experienced. I thought his reasoning in the PT article was calm and clear, and covered the important elements of this story. The problem is that there simply isn't evidence (or physics) to demonstrate that directed energy weapons or pesticide exposure are the answer. So we're left with mass hysteria as a possible explanation.
It's never been a "popular" explanation though, because from the beginning people were convinced that those perfidious Cubans and their Russian energy weapons were to blame. That's what makes this such an interesting story - you've got the classic drivers for mass hysteria like an enclosed community on enemy territory, little evidence for a physical or chemical cause of symptoms, and a press that's completely allergic to mass hysteria as an answer.
posted by sneebler at 7:15 AM on December 1, 2019
Thanks for that. I'm not sure being a high school teacher disqualifies him from writing articles in his previous field of work and expertise. But I live in a country where having been a hs teacher is often cited as a black mark on our prime minister's qualifications for his job.
I also note that his Wikipedia page claims he is an expert on mass hysteria, which I think merits scepticism regarding his claims - he has expertise in the area but he also has a bias towards this explanation.
An expert in a field prefers explanations related to that field? Is this like the consensus argument in climate change, where if you accept the consensus view, you're automatically disqualified as part of the hoax? This smacks of an attempt to dismiss the author's qualifications because he's somehow not a real scientist.
It's his task to explain why mass hysteria is a better explanation than, say, mosquito spray, a task that I'd guess many people in the thread don't believe he's managed.
I'm biased because, having followed this story for several years, I don't see any physical explanations emerging that are supported by anything but the flimsiest of evidence, and some kind of hysteria was always a possibility. That hasn't stopped the media from jumping on the various studies as they came out and proclaiming each of them the answer in turn. But mass hysteria is a real thing, and somebody was bound to make a better case for it as an explanation for the symptoms people in Havana experienced. I thought his reasoning in the PT article was calm and clear, and covered the important elements of this story. The problem is that there simply isn't evidence (or physics) to demonstrate that directed energy weapons or pesticide exposure are the answer. So we're left with mass hysteria as a possible explanation.
It's never been a "popular" explanation though, because from the beginning people were convinced that those perfidious Cubans and their Russian energy weapons were to blame. That's what makes this such an interesting story - you've got the classic drivers for mass hysteria like an enclosed community on enemy territory, little evidence for a physical or chemical cause of symptoms, and a press that's completely allergic to mass hysteria as an answer.
posted by sneebler at 7:15 AM on December 1, 2019
The problem is that there simply isn't evidence (or physics) to demonstrate that directed energy weapons or pesticide exposure are the answer.
Um hello, before-and-after brain MRIs identifying the damaged regions and pyrethrin and organophosphate residues in blood samples from recently-returned diplomats are not evidence of pesticide exposure?
posted by heatherlogan at 8:23 AM on December 1, 2019
Um hello, before-and-after brain MRIs identifying the damaged regions and pyrethrin and organophosphate residues in blood samples from recently-returned diplomats are not evidence of pesticide exposure?
posted by heatherlogan at 8:23 AM on December 1, 2019
An expert in a field prefers explanations related to that field? Is this like the consensus argument in climate change, where if you accept the consensus view, you're automatically disqualified as part of the hoax?
Except climate science is a massive field with near unanimous conclusions about the broad strokes of the climate problem and mass hysteria is a very much contested area with not much solid research and a long and sordid history of calling all kinds of things mass hysteria that turned out to be physiological diseases. There is also a long history of those who specialize in this field in making wild assumptions, diagnosing without examining patients, blanket statements, arguing for mass hysteria even when new evidence has clearly shown otherwise, disparaging patients who disagree with their assessments, trying to use the legal system to fight their detractors, poor research ethics and fraud, and so much more. This is not at all similar.
This smacks of an attempt to dismiss the author's qualifications because he's somehow not a real scientist.
Except in this case, the author is not in fact a scientist (possibly you could call him a social scientist), whereas many scientists and physicians have worked on this and come to different conclusions (which the author has just dismissed).
posted by ssg at 1:30 PM on December 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
Except climate science is a massive field with near unanimous conclusions about the broad strokes of the climate problem and mass hysteria is a very much contested area with not much solid research and a long and sordid history of calling all kinds of things mass hysteria that turned out to be physiological diseases. There is also a long history of those who specialize in this field in making wild assumptions, diagnosing without examining patients, blanket statements, arguing for mass hysteria even when new evidence has clearly shown otherwise, disparaging patients who disagree with their assessments, trying to use the legal system to fight their detractors, poor research ethics and fraud, and so much more. This is not at all similar.
This smacks of an attempt to dismiss the author's qualifications because he's somehow not a real scientist.
Except in this case, the author is not in fact a scientist (possibly you could call him a social scientist), whereas many scientists and physicians have worked on this and come to different conclusions (which the author has just dismissed).
posted by ssg at 1:30 PM on December 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
Um hello, before-and-after brain MRIs identifying the damaged regions and pyrethrin and organophosphate residues in blood samples from recently-returned diplomats are not evidence of pesticide exposure?
Umm hello. Please show me the controls.
posted by sneebler at 1:05 PM on December 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
Umm hello. Please show me the controls.
posted by sneebler at 1:05 PM on December 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
1) There's a fuller article: "Challenging the diagnosis of ‘Havana Syndrome’ as a novel clinical entity", published in the Journal of the Royal Medical Society, which goes further into these claims.
2) Many of the people here seem to be unfamiliar with what the actual peer-reviewed studies they are ostensibly relying upon said.
3) Even with the most thorough investigation, the Canadian Havana Syndrome study that posits neurotoxic insecticide, it's worth noting that they still can't explain the variety of symptoms and relative levels of impairment, arguing that a genetic susceptibility may be present in those who were exposed and who have had negative outcomes. There's also no clear correlation between duration of time in Havana and symptoms, and the method of sorting populations based on time since they were in Havana muddies the ability to draw inferences based on implied exposure amounts.
4) Even with that Canadian investigation, they note that the Canadian diplomats with markers of exposure show different symptoms than the Americans. For example, in one of the prior studies of the Americans, still working off the hypothesis of audio weapon, while 25% of subjects reported hearing loss, only 2 of them showed quantitative hearing loss in objective tests. This is compounded by the fact that the studies of Americans that showed nominal brain injury give different location, mechanism and cause for the brain injury.
5) As the majority of symptoms described by American diplomats can be caused by stress responses, and the symptoms have had different duration, onset periods, locations of exposure, and the data collection for the American responses was incredibly poor, asserting that the American symptoms have the same etiology as the Canadians is dubious.
I can understand the instinct to bristle at self-reported cognitive illness being diagnosed as psychosomatic, but this "syndrome," especially as experienced by Americans, does fit a broader pattern of mass anxiety disorder, and even with a tentative cause through exposure to insecticide, it's worth noting that many of the perceived symptoms can still be caused by suggestion.
posted by klangklangston at 3:34 PM on December 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
2) Many of the people here seem to be unfamiliar with what the actual peer-reviewed studies they are ostensibly relying upon said.
3) Even with the most thorough investigation, the Canadian Havana Syndrome study that posits neurotoxic insecticide, it's worth noting that they still can't explain the variety of symptoms and relative levels of impairment, arguing that a genetic susceptibility may be present in those who were exposed and who have had negative outcomes. There's also no clear correlation between duration of time in Havana and symptoms, and the method of sorting populations based on time since they were in Havana muddies the ability to draw inferences based on implied exposure amounts.
4) Even with that Canadian investigation, they note that the Canadian diplomats with markers of exposure show different symptoms than the Americans. For example, in one of the prior studies of the Americans, still working off the hypothesis of audio weapon, while 25% of subjects reported hearing loss, only 2 of them showed quantitative hearing loss in objective tests. This is compounded by the fact that the studies of Americans that showed nominal brain injury give different location, mechanism and cause for the brain injury.
5) As the majority of symptoms described by American diplomats can be caused by stress responses, and the symptoms have had different duration, onset periods, locations of exposure, and the data collection for the American responses was incredibly poor, asserting that the American symptoms have the same etiology as the Canadians is dubious.
I can understand the instinct to bristle at self-reported cognitive illness being diagnosed as psychosomatic, but this "syndrome," especially as experienced by Americans, does fit a broader pattern of mass anxiety disorder, and even with a tentative cause through exposure to insecticide, it's worth noting that many of the perceived symptoms can still be caused by suggestion.
posted by klangklangston at 3:34 PM on December 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
"Except in this case, the author is not in fact a scientist (possibly you could call him a social scientist), whereas many scientists and physicians have worked on this and come to different conclusions (which the author has just dismissed)."
The author is a scientist, and the second author on his published paper is Dr. Robert W. Baloh, director of the Neuro-Otology Lab at UCLA. (As an aside, Dr. Robert H. Baloh, is the head of Cedars-Sinai's neurodegenerative lab and appears to be his son.)
posted by klangklangston at 3:44 PM on December 2, 2019
The author is a scientist, and the second author on his published paper is Dr. Robert W. Baloh, director of the Neuro-Otology Lab at UCLA. (As an aside, Dr. Robert H. Baloh, is the head of Cedars-Sinai's neurodegenerative lab and appears to be his son.)
posted by klangklangston at 3:44 PM on December 2, 2019
« Older 9 charts to be thankful for this Thanksgiving | Trump got his wall after all Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:14 PM on November 28, 2019 [10 favorites]