EC Neurology

Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs) of the colloquially termed “Havana Syndrome” represent a challenging constellation of subjective and objective neurocognitive, vestibular, and autonomic features, with potential links to directed energy exposure. Diagnostic efforts have been hindered by heterogeneity in symptom reporting and the absence of standardized assessment tools. This paper proposes the development of an Anomalous Health Incident Symptom Questionnaire (AHISQ), modeled in part upon the McGill Pain Questionnaire, to facilitate structured, multidimensional characterization of symptom phenomenology. Integrating qualitative descriptors with quantitative metrics, the AHISQ would support reproducible data collection, epidemiological modeling, differential diagnosis, and forensic analysis. The paper details proposed domains of assessment, including sensory, cognitive-affective, functional, temporal, and contextual parameters, and advocates for digital integration, adaptive questioning, and multimodal validation incorporating neuroimaging, physiological, and biometric data. The AHISQ is presented as a tool to inform causal inference frameworks such as the Bradford-Hill criteria and PECOTS model, while addressing ethical imperatives for rigorous, inclusive, and hypothesis-neutral assessment. Ultimately, this approach aligns with a precision neurophenomenological paradigm, bridging subjective experience with objective analysis, and fostering improved diagnostic fidelity, patient care, and national security readiness.

 Keywords: Havana Syndrome; Anomalous Health Incidents; Neurocognitive Assessment; Differential Diagnosis; Presumptive Risk

1. Giordano J. “Review of Factors Involved in the Occurrence of Neurocognitive Disruptions in US Personnel at the United States Embassy, Havana, Cuba”. Consultative Report to the United States Department of State (2018).
2. Giordano J. “Probable Cause for the ‘Havana Syndrome’”. Advisory Report to the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) (2019).
3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies”. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2020).
4. Giordano J. “Directed energy remains key suspect behind Havana Syndrome”. National Defense (2024): 5-7.
5. Michael Hoffer, personal communication.
6. Giordano J. “House report on Havana Syndrome must spark action”. National Defense (2024): 9-12.
7. Giordano J and Diane DiEuliis. “Anomalous health incidents of the Havana Syndrome: Implications and lessons for global biosecurity”. Academia Letters 29 (2022): 5138.
8. Giordano J., et al. “Assessing anomalous health incidents of the ‘Havana Syndrome’: Potential utility - and issues - of using modular integrated artificial intelligence”. EC Neurology4 (2025): 1-8.
9. Melzack R. “The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods”. Pain3 (1975): 277-299.
10. Katz J and Ronald Melzack. “The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Development, psychometric properties, and usefulness of the long form, short form, and short form-2”. In DC Turk and R Melzack (eds.), Handbook of Pain Assessment (3^rd edition) NY: The Guilford Press (2011): 45-66.
11. Melzack, R and Joel Katz. “McGill Pain Questionnaire”. In: Schmidt, R., Willis, W. (eds) Encyclopedia of Pain. Springer, Berlin (2007).
12. Anciano D. “Can language be used to assess pain? A review”. Current Psychology 4 (1985): 167-182.
13. Ruangritchankul S and Orapitchaya Krairit. “Chronic pain assessment in the elderly”. Ramathibodi Medical Journal 3 (2018): 92-99.
14. Holroyd KA., et al. “A multi-center evaluation of the McGill Pain Questionnaire: results from more than 1700 chronic pain patients”. Pain3 (1992): 301-311.
15. Boljanovic-Susic D., et al. “The sensitivity and specificity of using the McGill pain subscale for diagnosing neuropathic and non-neuropathic chronic pain in the total joint arthroplasty population”. Archives of Physiotherapy1 (2023): 9.
16. Lovejoy TI., et al. “Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Revised Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire”. Journal of Pain12 (2012): 1250-1257.
17. da Cunha Menezes Costa L., et al. “Systematic review of cross-cultural adaptations of McGill Pain Questionnaire reveals a paucity of clinimetric testing”. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 9 (2009): 934-943.
18. Varoudaki T and Elizabeth A Reynolds Losin. “Clinician pain stereotypes inform pain assessment and treatment decisions”. Journal of Pain4 (2023): 13.
19. Welzel C., et al. “Holistic human-serving digitization of health care needs integrated automated system-level assessment tools”. Journal of Medical Internet Research 25 (2023): e50158.
20. Gonzalez-Hernandez G., et al. “Capturing the patient’s perspective: A review of advances in natural language processing of health-related text”. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 1 (2017): 214-227.
21. Verma R., et al. “Neuroimaging findings in US government personnel with possible exposure to directional phenomena in Havana, Cuba”. Journal of the American Medical Association 4 (2019): 336-347.
22. van Reekum R., et al. “Applying Bradford Hill's Criteria for causation to neuropsychiatry: Challenges and opportunities”. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 3 (2001): 318-325.
23. Calonge BN and Ann N Styka. “Synthesis of the presumption decision process assessment”. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US) (2023).
24. National Toxicological Program. “Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration” (2025).
25. World Health Organization. “Framework for the use of systematic review in chemical risk assessment”. Geneva: World Health Organization (2025).
26. Shook JR and Tibor Solymosi. “Neuroscience, Neurophilosophy and Pragmatism; Brains at Work with the World”. NY: Palgrave (2014).
27. Giordano J., et al. “Pain assessment: Subjectivity, objectivity, and the use of neurotechnology”. Pain Physician4 (2010): 305-315.