upvote
Amy Eskridge - who publicly stated she was not suicidal before "committing suicide" reported to her friends that she received burns to her arms and hands through her window in an attack that sounded similar to this microwave/havana syndrome stuff. She was very vocal about the fact that she was being harassed over her work before she died.
reply
She is also not a scientists, but some weird grifter with her “Institute of Exotic Science” and “antigravity” paper.
reply
> Amy Eskridge - who publicly stated she was not suicidal before "committing suicide"

I really hate the discourse around this stuff. Like, yes, disguising murder as suicide is a thing and obviously three-letters agencies do it.

But someone saying publicly they're not suicidal gives you close to zero information. People with suicidal ideation almost never advertise it publicly because, one, there is a heavy amount of social stigma attached to it, and two, publicly declaring you're suicidal is a good way to get involuntarily committed to a mental health institution.

I see a ton of jokes on social media that go "remember, X is not suicidal". How the fuck would you know? This discourse is so disrespectful to people struggling with suicidal thoughts.

reply
She was also very visibly delusional for years
reply
Havana Syndrome seems to be a CIA psyop to soften the US public to warhawk policy. The proposed mechanism is... magic. Incredible stuff.
reply
Speaking in layman's terms, it's fancy remote microwaving.
reply
No, it's not. There was one hasty study that claimed that early on, riddled with issues, and unable to be replicated. The symptoms are not RF burns.
reply
Source? It is known (and studied) that even at low power levels that do not significantly raise body temperature, short RF pulses can cause rapid, microscopic thermal expansion in the brain. This creates mechanical stress waves that can lead to TBIs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect

reply
It’s been going on since the Obama admin. Could be longer. Purportedly a unit was smuggled out of some former Soviet republic and we now have a copy of the actual device. When tested on animals, the device produced injuries in alignment with those experienced by US foreign service personnel.

It’s been a great source of fodder for conspiracy theorists though.

reply
So it could be nothing or it could be nothing?
reply
Lets say an American scientist in a strategic area was offered a boatload of money (or some other piece of mice) from China or similar. Legally probably he can move, though export control probably applies to the brain content too. How sure the said scientist would be that he isn't going to have a car accident? Gerald Bull would have a word on it. So, "disappear" may start to look like an attractive alternative. A related example - Russia has put a bunch of top hypersonic missile related scientists into prison for supposedly working with China (and may be they worked, though official charges have so far been obviously fabricated - like for publishing in a journal of an research article on a non-secret project with that article making all the typical rounds for months through peer-review, etc) as well as making a law giving FSB full control over any scientific interaction between domestic and foreign scientists and institutions.

I suppose the top AI talent may become subjects of a similar game.

reply
It doesn't have to be China or Russia. As others have mentioned, the current political climate in the US is... "weird". At least, as an outsider, I just don't know how else to describe it. It's like watching/listening to gibberish.

So I can imagine American allies recruiting scientists en-mass, to protect themselves from America. The US has currently demonstrated a desire to take over allies completely (Canada, Greenland), and I'm sure few know who may be next. Some scientists may have simply wished to move abroad, and also, have quite valuable skills which are restricted in some way, hence them "disappearing".

reply
Or the scientists and engineers themselves are wanting out of the US and were offered secret offers to "dissapear" and live elsewhere under a new identity
reply
We’ve just looped back to the first idea this brain dump came up with.
reply
>to protect themselves from America.

not necessarily from America. The goal #1 of the US dominated NATO for example was to prevent Germany from getting nuclear weapons in exchange for protection by US. Now with US de-facto withdrawing, Germany would have to quickly get nukes (as well as missiles to carry them) - i don't see other option for Germany here giving the environment in Europe and MidEast. So they would also need such scientists. South Korea, Japan, Australia seem to be in the similar situation too. (and everybody understands that a nuclear weapons program can't be a long multi-year endeavor - somebody will try to stop you - and so it must be very fast once started, and thus you have to have ready-to-use skills and knowledge)

reply
> Germany would have to quickly get nukes

No shit? Why would they have to? Is someone ready to nuke them if it turns out they’re no longer under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, or are they some special snowflakes who should have them while Iran (and most other countries) shouldn’t?

reply
they probably torture them for secrets and kill them
reply
> Research funding falling off a cliff

Where do you get this stuff?

Show me somewhere that says research funding has decreased? Not an article that says "we projected to increase funding by 100m but it was slashed to 50m". That's not decreasing funding, its slowing the growth. The only difference is that 50y ago US govt funded 80% of research and now funds 20%, but that's because you have private companies funding so much of it.

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/Function_DN...

reply
Awww your data drops off at 2023. You’re so smart.
reply
> CRS calculated that President Trump's budget proposal for FY2026 included approximately $181.4 billion for R&D, $10.7 billion (-6%) below the FY2025 estimated level of $192.2 billion. The requested $181.4 billion, which included advance and supplemental appropriations, was to support federal investments in the conduct of R&D as well as R&D-related physical assets (such as the construction of R&D facilities or equipment).

181 billion! How will we prosper as a nation if we go back to 2021 spending levels??

reply
What could have happened after 2023 ? It's a real mystery!
reply