Interesting; thank you for the resources.

JAMA conducted a study in 2018 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168) and another in 2019 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2738552). The critique you linked addresses only the 2018 study. It does appear the conclusion of the 2019 study isn't very definitive, though:

>Neuroimaging findings differed between controls and US government personnel who experienced neurological signs and symptoms after potential directional phenomena exposure in Havana, Cuba, although the clinical relevance of these differences is uncertain and may require further study.

The WSJ article published today states the following:

>One patient who recently transferred from a posting in a European capital to be treated at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland said doctors there had diagnosed a brain injury of the type seen in people exposed to shock waves from explosions.

>This person told the Journal the symptoms were preceded by piercing ear pain, high-pitched electronic noise and pressure in the ears. These occurred while the person was at home at night or early in the morning in March.

>The patient initially believed the symptoms were related to a Covid-19 vaccine received earlier. After the condition persisted, the embassy flew the worker back to Washington, embassy officials said.

I don't think WSJ is reporting on a patient who was previously included in one of these 2018/2019 analyses, because they claim the patient initially believed the symptoms were related to a COVID-19 vaccine.

It also appears to be hearsay from the patient, but according to WSJ in the citation above, the patient claims that doctors did specifically diagnose him with a brain injury.

There's also this October 2020 GQ story, which speaks to someone else who reports a similar claim: https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-micro...

It appears this patient wasn't included in the 2018 JAMA study. However, he did read the 2018 JAMA study and went to the same lab that was part of the study, so if you assume the lab is using faulty methodology, then that would cast additional doubt. It's unclear if he was part of the 2019 one.

The critique you posted states:

>The thrust of the criticism is a very simple one: most of the ‘cognitive dysfunction’ reported in the JAMA study wasn’t actually dysfunction. Della Sala and Cubelli argue that Swanson et al. relied on a very broad definition of ‘impairment’ that would generate many false positives.

The GQ article states:

>They evaluated 21 of the Havana victims and found the kind of damage to cognitive, balance, motor, and sensory functions associated with a severe concussion. Unlike with most concussions, however, these symptoms did not quickly dissipate. Instead, they lasted for months, waxing and waning over time.

Which would be invalid if the critique is justified. (I assume they're just summarizing the findings of the study.)

It also states:

>In the spring of 2018, a private neurologist gave Polymeropoulos a diagnosis: occipital neuralgia, a condition resulting from damage to the two nerves that run from the base of the skull, curving toward the front of the head.

So there's additionally the diagnosis from that neurologist.

There's a lot to sift through, here. At the very least, there's:

- The credibility of the 2018 JAMA study and the validity of that critique

- The credibility of the 2019 JAMA study and what critiques there could be of that

- This credibility of the specific first-hand account from Polymeropoulos and the diagnosis from a private neurologist

- The credibility of the testimonies from others in the GQ article

- The credibility of the patient and their doctor in this new article from WSJ

I'm definitely not qualified to assess those JAMA studies or the critique of the 2018 one. My confidence in the deliberate attack hypothesis is lower, now, but I still think it's more likely than not for the time being, pending additional commentary I can find on the studies and the critique. I'll post this around some places online that I know have a bunch of medical experts and see what they think of all this.