Feb 17, 2022 05:40 PM
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/...diagnosis/
EXCERPTS: In the fall and winter of 2001–2002, school children across the United States began to break out in a strange rash (Talbot 2002). [...] No toxins were ever found, but eventually the scratching stopped, and the rashes went away.
[...] On Christmas Eve in 1021 CE, eighteen people gathered outside a church in the German town of Kölbigk and began to dance wildly, seemingly involuntarily (Waller 2009)...
[...] In 2017, news reports emerged of health problems among workers at the U.S. Embassy in Cuba, including hearing loss and mild traumatic brain injury (Associated Press 2017)...
[...] in each of these cases, there is strong evidence that the real cause was psychological rather than medical or supernatural, making the puzzle of responsibility more difficult to solve. For several reasons, this message is not easily absorbed when you are suffering from real physical symptoms. “It’s all in your head” is neither a helpful nor an entirely accurate diagnosis.
[...] There appears to be no widely agreed-upon definition of mass psychogenic illness, but in 2010, a group of British researchers offered the following five-point definition (Page et al. 2010):
What Exactly Is Mass Psychogenic Illness?
Criteria 1 through 4 are often present, but they do not rule out an environmental cause. Often it is criterion 5 that tips the balance in favor of mass psychogenic illness. For example, the 9/11 rash went away when the students went home—which seemed to implicate the school environment—but the affected students were overwhelmingly girls. Investigators found no plausible explanation for why boys would not be affected by a toxin.
Similarly, in the case of the Havana Syndrome, the “attacks” were presumed first to be caused by acoustic and later by microwave energy (Swanson and Wong 2020), but experts in acoustics and microwave technology suggested it was extremely unlikely that a weapon could produce the kind of brain damage claimed in these cases (Baloh and Bartholomew 2020). Sound has been successfully used as a weapon, but typically it comes in the form of really loud music.
[...] As might be expected, Baloh and Bartholomew got lots of pushback on their conclusion that Havana Syndrome was a new example of mass psychogenic illness, but recently their view has begun to receive greater acceptance. In January 2022, the CIA reported that it was “unlikely that a foreign actor, including Russia, is conducting a sustained, worldwide campaign harming U.S. personnel with a weapon or mechanism” (Harris and Ryan 2022). The wording of this statement is quite careful, and it avoids identifying Havana Syndrome as a psychogenic illness. But it throws water on the dominant weapon theory and leaves the clear implication that the cause could be psychological.
Why Is This So Hard to Accept? Those who study mass psychogenic illnesses are quick to point out that the people affected are experiencing real physical symptoms. They are not imagining their complaints. So, why is this explanation so difficult to accept?
First, people often mistakenly believe they are being accused of mental illness. This is wrong. The very fact that the symptoms typically start with an index case and spread to larger and larger groups of people suggests it is not a mental illness. Psychological disorders are typically not catching. The culprit is not inside the people; it stems from the situation the people are in. In many cases, mass psychogenic illness can be understood as a response to a stressful situation. The compulsive dancers of the Middle Ages were dealing with poverty, war, plagues, and famine. The school children with rashes were responding to a uniquely scary period of bioterrorism fears, and the U.S. embassy staff in Havana were posted in a Russian-backed country with whom we have a long history of conflict.
Part of the confusion may simply be language. When we say that mass psychogenic illness is a psychological phenomenon, it does not imply that it is a psychological problem or mental illness. When a crowd at a sporting event turns ugly and fights break out, the resulting riot is a mass psychological event with dangerous ramifications, but there is no reason to believe the participants are mentally ill. Perfectly normal people do many things together—both good and bad—as a function of group psychology.
Second, once it reaches “epidemic” proportions, people band together, creating an advocacy group in search of someone to blame. The media play an important role in the process. Criterion 2 above states that “there must be a pre-existing social connection between two or more of the affected people.” In the Middle Ages, that meant a direct social connection, and as a result the dancing mania moved relatively slowly through Europe. In today’s world, word of an outbreak can move quickly over long distances. The girls in the 9/11 rash case were interviewed on local television, and the news spread rapidly. Similarly, the spy-versus-spy aspect of Havana Syndrome case spurred considerable media attention. There is a shortage of good research on the role of the media in mass psychogenic illness, but a 2005 preliminary study of past outbreaks suggested that media coverage could facilitate the spread of school-based psychogenic illnesses such as the 9/11 rash case (Vasterman et al. 2005). Media coverage can also build an advocacy group for the victims. When the 9/11 rash hit Quakertown, Pennsylvania, 1,000 parents showed up for a meeting with the school superintendent (Talbot 2002). It’s easy to imagine how difficult that meeting must have been for the school officials.
Third, we are no longer in an age—if we ever were—when people passively accept the diagnoses of medical professionals. Rather than leaving the prescribing of medicines up to our doctors, we watch endless drug commercials on television and are urged to “ask your doctor if ______ is right for you.” Getting good health services in the United States often requires being very assertive, and almost everyone has a story about having to fight with insurance companies to get coverage. It is not surprising that people would organize and advocate for a preferred diagnosis that implicates some villain rather than the more nuanced explanation of a group psychological effect... (MORE - missing details & reference footnotes)
EXCERPTS: In the fall and winter of 2001–2002, school children across the United States began to break out in a strange rash (Talbot 2002). [...] No toxins were ever found, but eventually the scratching stopped, and the rashes went away.
[...] On Christmas Eve in 1021 CE, eighteen people gathered outside a church in the German town of Kölbigk and began to dance wildly, seemingly involuntarily (Waller 2009)...
[...] In 2017, news reports emerged of health problems among workers at the U.S. Embassy in Cuba, including hearing loss and mild traumatic brain injury (Associated Press 2017)...
[...] in each of these cases, there is strong evidence that the real cause was psychological rather than medical or supernatural, making the puzzle of responsibility more difficult to solve. For several reasons, this message is not easily absorbed when you are suffering from real physical symptoms. “It’s all in your head” is neither a helpful nor an entirely accurate diagnosis.
[...] There appears to be no widely agreed-upon definition of mass psychogenic illness, but in 2010, a group of British researchers offered the following five-point definition (Page et al. 2010):
What Exactly Is Mass Psychogenic Illness?
- Presence of somatic (bodily) symptoms.
- Pre-existing social connection between two or more of the affected people.
- An epidemic spread of the symptoms.
- Attribution of symptoms by patients (or parents/caregivers) to threatening external agent of a physical or spiritual nature.
- Symptoms and signs that are not compatible with the environmental explanation offered by victims or with other plausible environmental toxins introduced at the time of onset.
Criteria 1 through 4 are often present, but they do not rule out an environmental cause. Often it is criterion 5 that tips the balance in favor of mass psychogenic illness. For example, the 9/11 rash went away when the students went home—which seemed to implicate the school environment—but the affected students were overwhelmingly girls. Investigators found no plausible explanation for why boys would not be affected by a toxin.
Similarly, in the case of the Havana Syndrome, the “attacks” were presumed first to be caused by acoustic and later by microwave energy (Swanson and Wong 2020), but experts in acoustics and microwave technology suggested it was extremely unlikely that a weapon could produce the kind of brain damage claimed in these cases (Baloh and Bartholomew 2020). Sound has been successfully used as a weapon, but typically it comes in the form of really loud music.
[...] As might be expected, Baloh and Bartholomew got lots of pushback on their conclusion that Havana Syndrome was a new example of mass psychogenic illness, but recently their view has begun to receive greater acceptance. In January 2022, the CIA reported that it was “unlikely that a foreign actor, including Russia, is conducting a sustained, worldwide campaign harming U.S. personnel with a weapon or mechanism” (Harris and Ryan 2022). The wording of this statement is quite careful, and it avoids identifying Havana Syndrome as a psychogenic illness. But it throws water on the dominant weapon theory and leaves the clear implication that the cause could be psychological.
Why Is This So Hard to Accept? Those who study mass psychogenic illnesses are quick to point out that the people affected are experiencing real physical symptoms. They are not imagining their complaints. So, why is this explanation so difficult to accept?
First, people often mistakenly believe they are being accused of mental illness. This is wrong. The very fact that the symptoms typically start with an index case and spread to larger and larger groups of people suggests it is not a mental illness. Psychological disorders are typically not catching. The culprit is not inside the people; it stems from the situation the people are in. In many cases, mass psychogenic illness can be understood as a response to a stressful situation. The compulsive dancers of the Middle Ages were dealing with poverty, war, plagues, and famine. The school children with rashes were responding to a uniquely scary period of bioterrorism fears, and the U.S. embassy staff in Havana were posted in a Russian-backed country with whom we have a long history of conflict.
Part of the confusion may simply be language. When we say that mass psychogenic illness is a psychological phenomenon, it does not imply that it is a psychological problem or mental illness. When a crowd at a sporting event turns ugly and fights break out, the resulting riot is a mass psychological event with dangerous ramifications, but there is no reason to believe the participants are mentally ill. Perfectly normal people do many things together—both good and bad—as a function of group psychology.
Second, once it reaches “epidemic” proportions, people band together, creating an advocacy group in search of someone to blame. The media play an important role in the process. Criterion 2 above states that “there must be a pre-existing social connection between two or more of the affected people.” In the Middle Ages, that meant a direct social connection, and as a result the dancing mania moved relatively slowly through Europe. In today’s world, word of an outbreak can move quickly over long distances. The girls in the 9/11 rash case were interviewed on local television, and the news spread rapidly. Similarly, the spy-versus-spy aspect of Havana Syndrome case spurred considerable media attention. There is a shortage of good research on the role of the media in mass psychogenic illness, but a 2005 preliminary study of past outbreaks suggested that media coverage could facilitate the spread of school-based psychogenic illnesses such as the 9/11 rash case (Vasterman et al. 2005). Media coverage can also build an advocacy group for the victims. When the 9/11 rash hit Quakertown, Pennsylvania, 1,000 parents showed up for a meeting with the school superintendent (Talbot 2002). It’s easy to imagine how difficult that meeting must have been for the school officials.
Third, we are no longer in an age—if we ever were—when people passively accept the diagnoses of medical professionals. Rather than leaving the prescribing of medicines up to our doctors, we watch endless drug commercials on television and are urged to “ask your doctor if ______ is right for you.” Getting good health services in the United States often requires being very assertive, and almost everyone has a story about having to fight with insurance companies to get coverage. It is not surprising that people would organize and advocate for a preferred diagnosis that implicates some villain rather than the more nuanced explanation of a group psychological effect... (MORE - missing details & reference footnotes)