[Nevermark]

If that is so, why not acknowledge that the current working theory is that it is psychogenic, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

The fact that psychogenic illness is not simply “weak” people, but a real phenomenon, strongly supports the fairness and necessity of offering treatment.

The wikipedia article says when authorities publicly take the effects seriously it can induce more cases. But the example was of getting help from a witch doctor, which was a remarkably dysfunctional “validation” to add to an already complex problem.

Another very dysfunctional “validation”: official denial, avoidance, obvious lack of work on solutions or mitigations, and all the trappings of a cover up!

Being direct has so many benefits, vs indirect denial or bad faith “treatments”.

It would be a reassuring response, to those in the same context without symptoms who are concerned about their own health.

Direct responses, with care given, are also in a better position to find treatments for psychogenic symptoms, preventative practices that reduce vulnerability, or alter working theories of cause, as any other evidence emerges.

Chronic anxiety and anxiety attacks are “psychosomatic” on an individual basis. But very real, often caused or impacted by working conditions, and important to diagnose and treat. Psychogenic illness should be the same. “Illness” is not a cause limited concept.

[bsder]

> Direct responses, with care given, are also in a better position to alter working theories as any other evidence emerges.

The problem is that "mental illness" is a career limiting diagnosis.

Security clearance personnel have the same problem as airplane pilots. They can't get treatment for mental illness because it would cut off their career.

Consequently, while "Havana Syndrome" may be real, there are large confounding problems in sorting it out.

I mean, look at how long it has taken to lock in on Gulf War Syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome

And the evidence for that is way stronger and doesn't have all the cloak and dagger implications.

[Nevermark]

The evidence that something wrong is beyond credible.

You may be right, that one diagnosis doesn't have the evidence of another issue you point out. But that is diagnosis. That there is a problem is certain.

It's a complex issue. But a decision has to be made, to either deal straightforwardly with a complex issue, or in a deceptive, avoidant, or secretive manner.

This isn't a choice that removes fundamental complexity, but being direct about problems avoids a lot of manufactured complexity.

If someone is suffering long term life changing mental symptoms, in what sense does the cause make it mental health vs. not mental health? Obviously, it is a mental health issue whether caused by physical or psychological malfunctions.

There is no "winning" for sufferers, in any scenario. But there is better support, or less support.

Generally competent people insisting they are dealing with something serious, should be taken seriously.

--

You may have identified the non-medical systemic problem here:

A strong case could be made that black and white "mental illness" disqualifications for any job are devastatingly out of step with reality and going to damage the careers of people it shouldn't. There should be some means of getting the all clear after any episode, given reasons to believe it has been resolved.

Beyond careers and people suffering unnecessarily, this also critically motivates people responsible for security and safety to hide and bury real problems!

How does that help institutions with safety and security concerns?