Cuba Says 'Mysterious Syndrome' is Not Scientifically Plausible

The report debunks a narrative it calls "mystery syndrome," which assumes that the cause of these incidents are attacks with some unidentified energy weapon. Its authors reveal that the narrative is based on the following - unverified - claims:

1) A novel syndrome with shared core symptoms and signs is present in the affected employees;

2) It is possible to detect in these employees brain damage originating during their stay in Havana;

3) A directed energy source exists that could affect people's brains from great distances after crossing the physical barriers of homes or hotel rooms;

4) A weapon capable of generating such a physical agent is achievable and identified; 5) Evidence of an attack was discovered;

6): The available evidence rules out alternative medical explanations.

RELATED:
State Dept Reveals Trump's Arbitrariness in Havana Sonic Event

The report critically examines the plausibility of these claims and the evidence on which they are based, concluding that the "mystery syndrome" narrative is not scientifically acceptable in any of its components and has only survived because of a biased use of science.

Although the report lacks some information, it provides plausible interpretations that fit the available facts better than the "mystery syndrome" narrative, based on published reports in the United States and Canada and field studies in Havana.

The text details the arguments for these interpretations, which are that:

Possibly some U.S. employees while stationed in Havana felt ill due to a heterogeneous collection of medical conditions, some pre-existing before going to Cuba and others acquired due to simple or well-known causes.

Many diseases prevalent in the general population can explain most of the symptoms. Thus, there is no novel syndrome (something evident in the official U.S. reports). Only a minority of people have detectable brain dysfunction, most due to experiences prior to their stay in Havana and others due to well-known medical conditions.

No known form of energy can selectively cause brain damage (with spatial precision similar to a laser beam) under the conditions described for the alleged Havana incidents.

The laws of physics governing sound, ultrasound, infrasound or radio frequency waves (including microwaves) do not permit this. These forms of energy could not have damaged brains without being felt or heard by others, without disturbing electronic devices in the case of microwaves, or without producing other injuries (such as ruptured eardrums or skin burns).

The report assures that at no time was anything of the sort reported. Although there are weapons that use sound or microwaves they are large in size and there is no possibility that this type of weapon would not go unnoticed (or leave a trace) if it had been deployed in Havana. Neither the Cuban Police, nor the F.B.I., nor the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have discovered evidence of "attacks" on diplomats in Havana despite intensive investigations.

Finally, psychogenic and toxic explanations for many symptoms in some cases were rejected by adequate research. Specifically, all the conditions for the psychogenic spread of distress were present in this episode, including probably an inadequate initial medical response, early official U.S. government endorsement of an "attack" theory, and sensationalist media coverage, among others.

The experts stand ready to revise its conclusions if new evidence emerges, inviting efforts to refute its interpretations in a climate of open scientific collaboration. However, it firmly rejects as "established truth" a narrative built on flimsy foundations and flawed scientific practice. An example is the idea that there was an "attack," which is accepted as "established truth without critical thinking."

Some scientific articles - and most of the news read - accept as an axiom that there were attacks in Havana, so they take it as an idea on which to build theories. However, after four years, no evidence of attacks has surfaced, making it time to rethink the narrative, the report's authors hold.