My Letter To The Editor of The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Dr. R. Douglas Fields

I respectfully request retraction of the article by Dr. Bartholomew due to his ignoring and not addressing the data directly contradicting the physchogenic illness hypothesis of "Havana Syndrome"

Dear Dr. R. Douglas Fields

Your editorial in the recent issue of "International journal of Social Psychiatry” titled “Why the Havana Syndrome Happened” drew my attention (1).

It is written in support of the the article by Dr. Robert Bartholomew inside the issue, titled “Havana Syndrome”: A post mortem” in which he continues on insisting on the psychogenic hypothesis of this condition.(2)

Without going into the weeds of the issue, I want to offer a simple argument that is at the heart of the scientific method: if a hypothesis is falsified, it has to be rejected.

Dr. Bartholomew cites a declassified Intelligence Community Report on AHI (Anomalous Health Intelligence) dated September 2022.(3)

However, he skips over the conclusion of the Report which contradicts his hypothesis. Specifically, Electromagnetic energy, particularly pulsed signals in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics, although information gaps exist.

Moreover, the Report states that the biomarkers associated with mild traumatic brain injury and concussion, called neurofilament light chain (NfL) protein and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), have been found to be elevated in patients with AHI. Levels return to normal within a few weeks, which matches the time-course of said biomarkers following mTBI, indicating damage to the BBB (Blood-Brain Barrier) and neural injury. 

Over the years, there have been other documented manifestations of organic brain injury in the validated cases of Havana Syndrome. The reason I am drawing your editorial attention to this particular Report, is because it has been declassified relatively recently, via FOIA request , in March of 2023. New data requires to be addressed, not to be ignored.

Dr. Bartholomew is clearly aware of this document, because he cites it as one of his newly added sources. However, he ignores the Report’s content, and does not address the data that directly falsifies his hypothesis. Yet, he finds support for it in your Editorial Article.

I respectfully request retraction of the article by Dr. Bartholomew because he ignored the new data that contradicts the thesis of his paper, instead of addressing it, as one should.

Sincerely,
Len Ber MD

1. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640231212865

2.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640231208374

3.  https://media.salon.com/pdf/22-cv-674%20Final%20Response%20Package.pdf