A reader asked me my thoughts on this article: Havana Syndrome investigation.
My not-ready-for-prime-time reply:
1. I was aware of the story from a year ago, or whenever it was, but only read the headlines and maybe a paragraph or two. I never paid any attention to the story.
2. From the article: "In a statement, CIA Director William J. Burns said analysts had conducted “one of the largest and most intensive investigations in the Agency’s history. I and my leadership team stand firmly behind the work conducted and the findings.”
3. "One of the largest and most intensive investigations...." [I assume this would include the Kennedy assassination) and all they could come up with is "highly unlikely." If folks recall, the CIA was the prime investigator in the JFK assassination investigation.
4. Again, no analysis: how many cases; how are those folks doing now; what was the final medical or psychiatric diagnosis in every case (percentages are fine)? how many patients had objective, reproducible abnormal studies (CT scans, MRIs, nerve transmission studies, etc) how many folks were discharged from military duty with full disability pay (which is 100% tax-free);
5. Besides a working diagnosis of "Havana syndrome" what other maladies were considered?
6. Once identified, why did the cases seem to stop all of a sudden? What embassies (other locations) were affected and are they still operating? Operating with any new protections?
7. But again, "highly unlikely" --- that was their bottom line.
8. Same with the DOE / Covid / China / lab escape story earlier this week: only one of six (?) Cabinet-level government agencies suggested it could have been due to escape from a laboratory and that assessment was of "low confidence."
9. So, in my mind, both reports carry the same weight. It's how the media chooses to interpret the 1000-page documents that I doubt will ever be read in full.
10. But, still, an investigation as big as the JFK assassination investigation and they come with "highly unlikely."
No comments:
Post a Comment