Dr. Bartholomew: "When in Doubt - Follow the Mainstream Science"
Dr. Robert Bartholomew is back with his psychogenic hypothesis of Havana Syndrome in his latest article in Skeptic Magazine: “Newly Declassified Report on ‘Havana Syndrome’ Used the Wrong Criteria!”
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/newly-declassified-report-on-havana-syndrome-used-wrong-criteria/
What’s the difference between skepticism and ignorance?
I love being a skeptic. I am the biggest skeptic of all. But I don’t engage in skepticism for the sake of skepticism. The latter is a religion, a belief that Occam’s Razor coupled with superfluous assessment of data merits the most reasonable explanation. It’s a mental trick, but it’s not the scientific method.
Well, Doctor Robert Bartholomew came up with a hypothesis that Havana Syndrome is a psychogenic illness. Great. All hypotheses merit investigation. But then he simply closed the case. Evidence that contradicts his hypothesis is dismissed as “junk science”, such as the findings in the recently declassified “AHIs Analysis of Potential Causal Mechanisms IC Experts Panel” Report, September 2022. Kudos to Mark Zaid and The James Madison Project for religiously filing and following up on the FOIA request!
https://media.salon.com/pdf/22-cv-674%20Final%20Response%20Package.pdf
And what are specifically the findings that Dr. Bartholomew calls “junk science”?
The report identifies Four Core Characteristics of Anomalous Health Incidents (events leading to Havana Syndrome). These Characteristics presented by themselves might not be new and original, but the combination of the four is “distinctly unusual, is unreported elsewhere in the medical literature, and so far has not been associated with a specific neurological abnormality”:
The acute onset of audio-vestibular sensory phenomena, including sound and/or pressure, sometimes in just one ear or one side of the head.
Other nearly simultaneous signs and symptoms such as vertigo, loss of balance, and ear pain.
A strong sense of locality or directionality.
The absence of known environmental or medical conditions that could have caused the reported signs and symptoms.
Moreover, transient rather than sustained elevation of biomarkers called neurofilament light chain (NfL) protein, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is indicative of acute disruption of blood-brain barrier in a fashion similar to brain injury caused by concussion. These proteins leak from the brain into the blood, where they are detected.
Is psychogenic illness the best explanation for these core characteristics when they appear together, plus the evidence of acute blood-brain barrier disruption? They say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Likewise, extraordinary findings require extraordinary explanation. And these ARE extraordinary findings that taken together are “distinctly unusual”.
And what does it mean the report “used the wrong criteria''? Is Dr. Bartholomew suggesting the investigators should be limiting their methods to psychological assessment only, and not chasing a “mythical” condition?
And then, there comes Advice of the Year from Dr. Robert Bartholomew:
“when in doubt — follow the mainstream science.”
(I thought it was just science)