1.0 Introduction: What is Havana Syndrome?
Havana Syndrome began in 2016 when the US State Department allegedly uncovered an attack on diplomats at the American Embassy in Havana, Cuba. Some theories cohere around theories of a hostile foreign power using acoustic weapons to cause brain damage.
Specialists evacuated those affected stateside for treatment. Their health problems were extensive: headaches, dizziness, nausea, and fatigue. Most concerning of all were the concussion-like symptoms, intense brain pressure, and cognitive difficulties. State Department representative Heather Nauert would later observe: “We have never seen this anyplace in the world before” [source].
Naturally, it exacerbated fears of the creation of a new weapon, purposefully developed, and used against Americans. The main culprits included the Russians or Chinese, both of whom with the knowledge of the government in Havana. As such, the attacks spurred the State Department to expel Cuban diplomats and threatened to force the Embassy’s closure. Reports also emerged of Canadian diplomats in Havana similarly affected by the alleged attacks [source].
Fig.1 US Embassy in Havana, Cuba.
2.0 Mysterious Viruses or Chemical Agents?
Fifteen months after the first reported attack, neuro-scientists at the University of Pennsylvania confirmed the existence of concussion-like symptoms. The medical consensus – at the time- was that “an unknown energy source” damaged patients’ brains [source]. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published the findings and made international headlines. It subsequently led to a flurry of sensational news stories confirming not only the attacks, but so too brain trauma.
It was no longer a question of ‘if’, but ‘who’ was behind such attacks. For instance, the Los Angeles Times proclaimed: “US Diplomats Suffered Brain Injuries.” The Washington Post declared: “Neurological Injuries Found in the US Staff in Cuba”. Similarly, Time Magazine carried the headline: “Cuba Denies Role in ‘Sonic Attacks’ that Left US Diplomats with Brain Damage”. The UK’s Daily mail reported: “Damning evidence Cuba’s launched a sci-fi sonic weapon at America as US Diplomats are hit by hearing and memory loss – and even mild brain damage”.
2.1 Mass Hysteria, Mass Sensationalism, or Mass Psychogenic Illness?
However, victims commonly experience neurological complaints, abnormalities in brain function that often mimic concussion-like symptoms. Yet it does not necessarily imply brain damage. Leaked reports to the media prior to the publication of the 2018 JAMA study, claiming that many of the affected diplomats were suffering from mysterious white matter tract changes to the brain, proved to be false.
To illustrate, the MRI results confirmed that only a few had minor changes to their white matter tract. However, this would not be unusual for any group of normal subjects of that sample size. Crucially, though, there is a difference between claiming there were brain abnormalities and asserting there was brain damage [source].
Fig.2 Brain Scans Belonging to Those Afflicted by Havana Syndrome
3.0 Havana Syndrome: Chronology of Events
3.1 The Press Briefing
On 9 August 2017, during a State Department Press Briefing, Nauert confirmed claims of US Embassy staff becoming sick or injured under ‘mysterious circumstances’ to Steve Dorsey, a correspondent for CBAS Radio News. She further admitted that the Department was accumulating evidence that staff working at the Embassy had been involved in “incidents” that caused “a variety of physical symptoms”. She provided confirmation that the US expelled two diplomats from the Cuban Embassy in Washington [source]. Clearly, by virtue of these actions, Havana Syndrome was a major diplomatic episode that American governments officials sought to properly rectify.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a vocal critic of the Cuban government and a staunch opponent of normalising ties with Cuba, immediately condemned the “harming” of American citizens. He noted that there was a long history of Cuban operatives harassing embassy staff [source]. This episode thus threatened to derail a two-year initiative that began under the Obama administration to renew diplomatic ties and normalise relations with the government in Havana.
3.1.1 Normalisation on Hold?
The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strongly worded denial of any involvement in the attacks.
“The Ministry categorically emphasises that Cuba has never, nor would it ever, allow third-party actors to use Cuban territory to for any action against accredited diplomatic agents or their families, without exception.”
– . Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs [source].
The Ministry similarly noted that they were first informed of the “alleged incidents” on February 17 of 2017. Distressed as they were over the expulsion of Cuban diplomats from the US over the affair. Cuban authorities also emphasised that they were keen to cooperate with the US, as they had nothing to hide [source].
3.2 First Mention of Sonic Attacks
At this point, neither Dorsey nor Nauert had made any reference to a sonic attack. The first public mention of this occurred when the Associated Press reported on information gleaned from State Department sources who spoke under the condition of anonymity. Under the headline: “Hearing Loss of US Diplomats in Cuba Blamed on Covert Device,” the report stated that there had been “a string of bizarre incidents that left a group of American diplomats in Havana in severe hearing loss attributed to a covert sonic device.”
The sources further reported that the government had “concluded that the diplomats had been exposed to an advanced device that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. It was not immediately clear if the device were a weapon in a deliberate attack or had some other purpose” [source].
3.2.1 An Easy Scapegoat?
On 14 September, the State Department began to replace “incidents” with terms like “health attacks,” and later, a “crime” [source]. Soon thereafter, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote an urgent letter to then President Trump, calling for the following:
- The expulsion of all Cuban diplomats in the US
- The closure of the American Embassy in Cuba
By mid-October, President Trump further stoked US-Cuba tensions, by proclaiming: “I do believe Cuba is responsible for the attack” [source]. White House Chief of Staff – John Kelly – similarly echoed these sentiments: “We believe that the Cuban government could stop the attacks on our diplomats” [source].
3.3 Havana Syndrome’s Disputed Russian and Chinese Interference
In mid-October 2017, the State Department expelled fifteen more Cuban diplomats. By November, CBS News uncovered that the US also evacuated US Embassy worker from Uzbekistan, after he reported similar symptoms. The State Department reportedly flew him out for evaluation amid US senior officials’ fears of Russian interference. The latter, of course, was not an unlikely prospect due to the country’s growing influence in Havana.
“The Russians have been rebuilding their relationship with Cuba, it deteriorated dramatically after the end of the Cold War. They have a strong presence in Cuba and a historic relationship with Cuban intelligence that might give them the kind of freedom to operate that would provide an opportunity“
– William Leogrande, a foreign policy professor at American University [source].
However, the State Department later refuted the report, confirming that no incident of Havana Syndrome occurred in Uzbekistan [source]. In June 2018, the NYT reported that a diplomat at a consulate in Guangzhou also had developed identical symptoms. As one might anticipate, it ignited speculation about possible Chinese involvement in the Havana incidents [source].
3.4 The Cuban Sonic Investigation Committee Findings
US officials first informed Cubans of the sonic attack “incidents” on 17 February 17, 2017. A barrage of accusations that implicated the Havana government ensued thereafter. Naturally, the Cuban government reacted aggressively, concerned that hostilities would put a damper on the recent warming in diplomatic ties.
By March, the Cuban government formed a committee of the country’s top scientists to examine the claims. Further, they invited the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to visit the country and conduct their own inquiry.
In early December, the Committee announced their findings: there was no evidence of an attack. The panel concluded that the most likely explanation was “collective psychogenic disorder.” The probe was thorough and included an examination of the rooms of two hotels where diplomats first reported their symptoms. In addition, investigators canvassed neighbourhoods and conducted interviews of some 300 residents.
None reported any health issues associated with unusual sounds. Specialists analysed air and soil samples, eliminating the possibility of toxic chemicals. Even before the report’s publication, the head of the Criminal Division of the Ministry of Interior. Lt. Colonel Jorge Alazo stated that specialists found no tangible cause [source].
3.5 Canada Contagion
In April 2017, Canadian embassy staff began developing symptoms similar to the US. An email to Ottawa in mid-May, approved by the Canadian ambassador, suggested that some Canadians may have been experiencing psychosomatic symptoms. It read in part: “Many of the symptoms are similar to signs of extreme stress. There is the possibility that the fear of being targeted caused adverse mental health effects.”
In late January 2019, the Canadian Government announced that a fourteenth member of their diplomatic staff fell ill.
In response, Canada cut its Havana mission staff from 16 to 8. Within a week, lawyers acting on behalf of the 14–5 diplomats, had filed a $28 million lawsuit (US$21 million).
Most of these symptoms would be routinely encountered by a general practitioner. Yet, this did not stop the lawyers from claiming that the plaintiffs were “clearly the victims of some kind of new weaponry, or method of attack” [source].
In September 2019, the Canadian government concluded that exposure to neuro-toxins from pesticides was the most likely culprit. Since 2016, the Cuban government has routinely engaged in an aggressive public spraying campaign to control the Zika virus which is spread by mosquitoes.
3.6 An Unlikely Suspect: Cicadas and the Power of Suggestion
Once the determination was made in early 2017 that the symptoms originated from a sonic device, American diplomats posted to Havana “were quietly warned they could face a mysterious threat that was causing American Foreign Service officers to fall ill, some with long-lasting symptoms” [source].
These briefings went beyond mere counseling. Staff in Cuba played audio recordings to diplomats posted in Havana, of the sounds that had accompanied their symptoms. Experts later identified these recordings as crickets and cicadas.
These actions more ‘attacks’ because new Embassy staff were on the lookout for sounds that resembled these very insects. As one Embassy worker told stated: “If, prior to deploying to Havana, a government official were given this recording and told it was the hallmark of a debilitating attack, it is completely understandable that said official
would arrive in Havana, hear the insects not long after, and fear the worst” [source].
As Bartholomew neatly captured, Embassy staff became hyperaware of sounds and grew fearful that they were signs of an acoustical attack. This, Bartholomew claims, is a classic set-up for an outbreak of mass psychogenic illness and for activating the Nocebo effect.
4.0 Unsound Science
4.1 The 2018 JAMA Study
The initial publication of the 2018 JAMA study was replete with flaws and unsubstantiated claims. Physicians from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine conducted tests on twenty-one of the afflicted US Embassy staff. Instead, physicians sought to “describe the neurological manifestations that followed exposure to an unknown energy source.”
In so doing, they preempted the possibility of other explanations and prematurely dismissed claims of mass psychogenic illness. Media leaks – from members of the study themselves – claimed significant changes to white matter in patients’ brain. Their actual data, however, was not as conclusive or unidimensional as the literature suggested.
For instance, Dr. Sergio Della Sala of the University of Edinburgh described the study as an example of “poor neuropsychology.” He said that the standards for neurological impairment used in the JAMA study were so arbitrarily high that it gave rise to many false positives [source].
4.2 The 2019 JAMA Study
On July 23, 2019, JAMA published a second study. Scientists including some who were involved in the original 2018 study, conducted MRI scans on the brains of forty diplomats.
Once again, their findings generated alarming international headlines. Researchers found that patients’ white matter volume had shrunk by about five percent. While their auditory networks exhibited a fifteen percent reduction in function.
Indeed, publication of the 2019 study prompted a flurry of media reports which gave credence to the acoustical attack claims. For instance, Britain’s Sun newspaper reported that the ‘sonic attacks’ had left US embassy staff in Cuba “with shrunken brains.” The New York Post proclaimed: “Cuba ‘Sonic Attacks’ Changed US Diplomats’ Brains, Study Finds.” The New Scientist heralded: “Brain Scans Hint the Mysterious ‘Sonic Attack’ in Cuba was Real.” Reuters quoted the study’s lead author, Dr. Ragini Verma, as describing differences in the brains of the two groups as “jaw-dropping.”
However, researchers admitted that: “it cannot be determined whether the differences are due to individual differences between patients or differences in level and degree of exposure to an uncharacterised directional phenomenon.” In other words, individual variation could explain the differences. Curiously, the abstract never mentioned this limitation. It subsequently gave the impression that affected Embassy staff had brain abnormalities that could not be accounted for.
4.3 Pushing an Agenda: Mixing Politics and Science
Once President Trump first identified Havana Syndrome in February 2016, he defined it as a resumption of Cold War hostilities. The US Government’s handling of Havana Syndrome has only exacerbated the episode due to its contradictory claims. Not to mention, the use of ambiguous, dramatic descriptions such as “brain trauma,” and the failure to release Freedom of Information documents or redacted medical records of those affected. Publicity surrounding the events has served to reaffirm, magnify and propagate the suggestive effect.
The US IC cannot prove an association between Havana Syndrome and agents of the Cuban government. Yet they based their action on the grounds that Cuban officials had failed to protect foreign diplomats under the Vienna Convention [source].
In addition, during Cuba’s Committee Hearings, Marco Rubio – who was already dismissive of the Cuban panel of experts probing the sonic attack claims – presided over what any objective observer would describe as a ‘kangaroo court’ – a hearing with a predetermined outcome. He was not interested in entertaining psychological explanations for the symptoms.
5.0 Whodunnit: Havana Syndrome’s Alleged Culprits
There is no shortage of those deemed suspect when it comes to those responsible for the ‘sonic’ or ‘acoustic’ attacks. Dissident members of the Cuban security service, disillusioned with the pragmatic approach undertaken by Raúl Castro as bilateral relations with the US improved, and loyal to the harder line of former President Fidel Castro, were indicated in US media as early suspects.
International criticism was also directed at Vladimir Putin. Especially after the poisoning of a former KGB agent in England, suggestive of the potential role of Russian operatives.
In terms of methods deployed, theories cohered around infrared and ultrasound weapons. While the media propounded the vague but ominous term ‘directed energy’. In 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) concluded that microwave beams could alter brain function without causing “gross structural damage”.
Further, doctors in a team assembled by the State Department considered the malevolent application of a ‘neuro-weapon’ [source]. Previously, specialists considered a space-age sonic weapon as the likely cause of Havana Syndrome. Although later discarded as a prime cause, since sound waves alone were not sufficient to produce the listed symptoms.
Some theories also postulate that Cuban eavesdropping equipment malfunctioned. This theory propounds the view that Cuban intelligence personnel set microphones and receivers too closely together. It is worth mentioning, however, that these claims are largely unsubstantiated.
6.0 Havana Syndrome: Unidentified Causes
The US continues to investigate whether Havana Syndrome might be the result of the actions, deliberate or otherwise. In February 2022, a panel of scientific experts from the Intelligence Community (IC) concluded that the injuries suffered in this smaller subset of cases were most likely caused by “pulsed electromagnetic energy, particularly in radio frequency range” [source].
In March 2023, the IC released an updated assessment. Seven intelligence agencies judged it was unlikely or very unlikely that a foreign adversary bore responsibility for Havana Syndrome. Agencies varied from low confidence to moderate to high confidence in this judgement [source]. The IC has thus not yet reached consensus on the issue, and some ambiguity remains.
Irrespective of whether Havana Syndrome was a result of a third party actor, the potency of the threat is primarily the uncertainty it creates. Not to mention, the deployment of government personnel and the bureaucratic time/ energy that US diplomatic and intelligence agencies dedicate to providing a response with little information. An adversary needs only to create the perception that it has the ability to clandestinely use technology to harm US personnel for such a coercive attack to have its desired effect.