Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WHO Says Afghan School "Poison Attacks" Probably Mass Hysteria

Posted by timothy on from the blue-red-or-sugar dept.

New submitter smugfunt writes "A number of incidents at schools in Afghanistan, especially girls' schools, have been attributed to poisoning by the Taliban. The World Health Organization has investigated 32 of them but found no poison. "Mass Psychological Illness is the most probable cause," they conclude, the Telegraph reports. The Taliban has consistently denied poisoning schools and have even consented to allow the education of girls in a deal with the government which allows significant Taliban control over the curriculum."

36 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. The Taliban denied.. by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 2

    and someone believed them? Shame shame shame.

    1. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since the Taliban are the most politically convenient thing to the US Neocons to appear on the global marketplace of \textit{casus belli}, it's more accurate to say, "Something was said about the Taliban.. and people believed them?"

      Anyone not allowing themselves to be as the slowly boiled frog over the past 15 years should recognise that nothing which comes out of the mouths of Washington and London is to be believed, nor is any of the reporting home and abroad which can be controlled by either. War reporting died after the DoD saw what happened when people saw the live action footage of Vietnam. It's not that everything's a lie - though everything does, of course, have a spin put on it. It's merely that it would be intellectually dishonest for the average guy sitting at home to claim that he has evidence of what's a lie and what's the truth - anyone who claims so is usually just allowing his prejudices to select the evidence which backs up his views.

    2. Re:The Taliban denied.. by EdIII · · Score: 2

      Taliban are not relevant. At least not to the investigation part into whether or not the crime occurred. Who cares what a possible suspect says anyways when you still can't even establish that.

      This isn't just somebody either. It's the WHO. Considering their reputation, I think it's reasonable to assume they were some actual investigation into hospital records, perhaps even direct tests on the girls.

      I am admittedly still a little bit skeptical. 32 incidents, and not a single scrap of evidence for poison? No indications in their blood samples? No physical samples in the water? The schools themselves have no chemical traces?

      That's amazing to have that many incidents of mass hysteria. Really amazing.

    3. Re:The Taliban denied.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      It's especially amazing in a place where many women have in fact immolated themselves rather than face further abuse from their husbands. There are so many real, systemic abuses of women in that society that honestly if somebody is looking for abuse and doesn't find it, I smell cover-up. What was the methodology? Who was doing the sampling, the analysis? What was the chain of custody?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:The Taliban denied.. by captjc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To play devil's advocate, what reason do they have to deny it if they did it? The Taliban is a fundamentalist party that supports acts of terrorism. The difference between a terrorist and psychopath is that a terrorist has a message. If a terrorist group were to lie about culpability it would probably be to take credit for acts they didn't commit. In fact, for pretty much any disaster or accident, there is almost always a group willing to take responsibility whether they did it or not.

      The Taliban is a malevolent organization, but they are not comic book villains plotting nefarious acts for evil's sake.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    5. Re:The Taliban denied.. by EdIII · · Score: 2

      I remember hearing about several where people swore they smelt something that made them sick but nothing was ever found.

      We had that happen at a company I worked for almost 10 years ago. Determined it was a complex chemical reaction between "Steve" and "Del Taco".

    6. Re:The Taliban denied.. by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      THE RELEVANT thing is that the girls haven't died AND they've all gone home in few hours.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No offence meant to your brother here, but your evidence that the Taliban is evil is that your brother, a foreign soldier and member of an occupying army, has been attacked?

      Wow.

    8. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what reason do they have to deny it if they did it?

      My thoughts exactly. The fact that they could have done it and nobody would be very surprised is what gives this denial plausability.

      The Taliban is a malevolent organization, but they are not comic book villains plotting nefarious acts for evil's sake.

      Like all real-life villains, they consider themselves the good guys.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Hentes · · Score: 2

      The point of terrorism is to cause terror. Denying its existence would not be in the Taliban's interests if they were behind the attacks. Still, it's possible that they have just backed out.

    10. Re:The Taliban denied.. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The "everyone is lying"-approach is not exactly productive, either, is it? I am somewhat fed up by the success of the conservatard "teh scientist are frauds and are only doing it for teh funds!!! lol !!!" meme. Skepticism is good, but it has to be based in facts, not in some herp-derp-it's all lies conspiratorial bullshit. You got any indication that the WHO is covering something up here? If so, I'll play along.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    11. Re:The Taliban denied.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Taliban is a malevolent organization, but they are not comic book villains plotting nefarious acts for evil's sake.

      Spot on. The Taliban are basically the political right-wing of the Pushtun tribe (ie: a clan within the tribe). The Pushtun's have ruled the area around the ancient city of Kandahar for centuries, the area is also a natural choke point for intenational trade and is a strategically a very important control point, as such the locals have fought with and against just about every empire that has existed over the past 10,000yrs, there is a desert city in the area that is 7000yo (forget the name), it has been leveled by invading armies 800 times, the current city is built on a 30-40 foot high mound of rubble left over from the previous 799 versions.

      Hamid Karzai (the president of Afghanistan and Nato's BFF) is himself a Pushtun but belongs to a different clan. They are all hard people living in a hard place, a large chunk of the population are literally still living in a medieval culture, the more radical clans such as the Taliban remind me very much of the Scottish highlanders who until fairly recently attacked anyone who came to close to their mountains (and did so with sound reasoning based on past experience).

      AFAICT US policy seems to be to assasinate the Pushtun warlords it does not like. Having seen the video of Saddam Hussien doing something conceptually similar (start @ 1:25, nsfw), I'm not sure I'm ok with that.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:The Taliban denied.. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      To play devil's advocate, what reason do they have to deny it if they did it?

      They have reason to deny it because it makes them look like backwards savages to the rest of the world

      The Taliban has never cared to be seen as backward savages by, in their own view, immoral infidels. These are the people who blew the Bamiyan's Bhuddas to pieces, who whipped women to shreds, who planned to give yellow armbands to the local Hindus for ease of identification, and were quite ok with committing acts of genocide against the Hazaras. They are too fucking illiterate to even realize the type of bestial savagery they represent.

      Any concessions they give now is because they have been under the gun for quite sometime. Otherwise, rest assure they'd back to their shit-on-the-ground, bestial shenanigans.

    13. Re:The Taliban denied.. by lennier · · Score: 2

      You cannot STEAL land, it is taken and held by force alone. This is called military conquest, and is a completely legitimate form of ownership.

      Your thesis on homeowner's rights intrigues me and I would like to join your suburban real-estate agency.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  2. Re:WHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who? Oh, those guys. I don't know what happened but I'm not taking the WHO's word for anything at all.

    Hey, they have some kick ass songs. Plus, Pete Townshend's powerslide.

  3. It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . and the Taliban are quite successful at spreading it. If you had a bunch of "Islam Gone Wild" retro medieval fanatics romping around your neighborhood killing innocent folks for fun and excitement . . . you might tend to be a bit on the edgy side yourself. A car engine backfire will incite you to grab your assault rifle and empty the clip in all directions, to defend yourself. In essence, anyone in Afghanistan will believe that the Taliban are capable of committing horrific atrocities. That makes people fear the Taliban, and it gives the Taliban strength.

    Now, take a look in your own airports, and see if the population of your country is so scared, that they tolerate crotch groping and all other types of submissive humility . . . all because the fear of terror has devoured their souls.

    Yep, terror can inflict colossal mass hysteria damage.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by MPAB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a neurologist and I deal everyday with people that are obviously suffering a conversive disease. This does not mean that they are feigning or malingering, It's just that somehow their brains malfunction and generate bizarre symptoms. In most cases the disease has no anatomical and physiological integrity (i.e. it crosses boundaries that it should not, or a certain part that should also be affected works fine).
    It's frustrating because the patient and everyone around her (mostly happens to females) is pretty convinced of an impending illnes and they request test after test, sometimes even threatening to sue. Of course nothing is found ... or worse: a harmless congenital defect can be found, which will produce more anxiety.

    1. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by Psychotria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are the "electric shocks" that occur after (or even without) cessation of SSRIs a "conversive disease"? I ask only because no neurologist, or psychiatrist, or general prac that I've personally spoken to even admit it's they are a true phenomenon. They say it cannot be true because CAT,. MRI, and other etc neuroimaging methods show nothing. So I guess those millions of people who do suffer from them are making it up, or have somehow been "infected" through a "conversive disease" (??)

    2. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I ask only because no neurologist, or psychiatrist, or general prac that I've personally spoken to even admit it's they are a true phenomenon.

      Define "true". Are you experiencing side-effects which to you feels like electric shocks? Yes. Are you actually being shocked? No. It's "all in your head", but you're not imagining it. It's real, but it's really not what it feels like. In the same way that heart-attack sufferers often report numbness or pain in their left arm, not their chest. It's real, but it has nothing to do with their arm. (Or in the case of the Afghan girls, their symptoms are "real", in that they are classic symptoms of anxiety and panic (Nausea, dizziness, breathing problems, even fainting.) But they aren't "true" in being caused by poison.)

      As for health professionals "admitting it's real". It was my GP who suggested the term, "electric shocks", when I tried to describe that part of the withdrawal symptoms. (To me it's not a "shock", it feels more related to the inner ear. Or at least, to head movement.) He told me it's a common symptom, gave me a pretty good idea how long it would last, used it to gauge the level of withdrawal.

      I wonder if the difference is the intellectual respect your GP/etc has for you? Your GP/etc sees their job as reassuring a panicky/hysterical patient that he/she is not actually being electrically shocked (it stuns me that they actually sent you to get CAT scans, MRIs, etc), while my GP sees his job as working with me to ensure I'm getting the benefits I want, without unusual/dangerous symptoms. (For example, my GP picked up on my description as being related to head-movement, and asked about balance/dizziness. If the symptoms were severe enough to actually affect my balance, then I'd probably have to slow the speed of withdrawal, give my brain longer to adjust.)

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    3. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by MPAB · · Score: 2

      It's a side effect I've heard from many people. I don't know why it happens, but I believe them. I don't even know if the sensation is produced in the peripheral nerves or in the brain. Like when you hit your elbow and feel an electric shock in your outermost fingers: the hit stimulates the ulnar nerve and that signal is interpreted in your brain as a weird feeling in the area the aforementioned nerve controls. No imaging method nor an EMG/ENG/EEG will show anything because it's a tiny chemical malfunction that happens somewhere, like a miscalibration. Most withdrawal symptoms (even from alcohol) come from such miscalibrations because the brain adapts to the new chemical balance induced by the drug.

    4. Re:Conversion diseases are so frustrating... by MPAB · · Score: 2

      I myself have migraines. Lots of people do and everyone's migraine is different and has different triggers. As an anecdote: I had daily migraines for a few months while at med school. I even blamed the anatomy teacher, because they would begin during said class. Then someone fixed the vending machine, which had been giving away Fanta at 1/10th the price and I quit drinking it before class. The migraines remitted to their usual frequency of once or twice a month and I could unleash one by drinking a Fanta (not a Coke or Sprite). I've known of no other person with such a trigger.
      As for your question, most of the time CD diagnosis is straighforward but tests are made to ensure it is not a rare manifestation of a life-threatening illness. Sometimes, it's not as simple as it seems. I've seen deep focal epilepsies which go undetected by EEG after EEG but cause bizarre symptoms. Or paraneoplasic syndromes that show up as dementia in which the tumor isn't detected until after a year or so.
      In your case, migraines are in fact very sensitive to sleep disorders, still I'm very surprised a doctor would keep you in for 5 whole nights just because your sleep disorder was not diagnosed in the first full-night polysomnography. We usually draw the line there.

  5. Suspicious... by matunos · · Score: 3, Funny

    This sounds like the work of Scarecrow. A Dark Knight Rises ad campaign?

  6. Plausible by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As best I can tell there have been no reported deaths. That doesn't completely rule out poisoning, but along with there being no actual threats or anyone claiming responsibility, it does lend credence to the idea of it just being hysteria.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Plausible by Squeeself · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering a number of other examples are quite similar to these particular events, I find mass hysteria to be not only plausible, but a likely explanation, in my not-so-expert opinion. All it takes is a number of closely-interacting people (especially young girls) under stress (the region certainly provides plenty of fearful catalysts) and a trigger (simple normal sickness will do) and you've got an "outbreak."

  7. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But even then, the Bible says to give to Ceasar what is Caesar's

    I always thought that meant that you had a duty to pay your taxes, serve the army, serve your country...

    But that you also had to be mindful of a duty to tithe, serve god, and serve the church..

    I'd never read that as "separation of church and state", just an admonishment that you had a duty to both, and should neglect neither.

  8. I don't know. by dohzer · · Score: 2

    I give up! Who?

  9. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by Empiric · · Score: 2

    Factually erroneous on every point, but out of curiosity, what do you mean by "evil" per -your- definition and objective justification, rather than parasiting off of Christianity's as you attack it?

    Are you saying that any of this behavior reduces the likelihood of the DNA of the theism advocates propagating maximally, as a Naturalism criticism that would validly remain open to you? Because at this point, you haven't suggested anything that gives any weight, validity, or significance to your characterizations.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  10. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    you might tend to be a bit on the edgy side yourself. A car engine backfire will incite you to grab your assault rifle and empty the clip in all directions, to defend yourself.

    Hmm, that's doubtful. Wouldn't that just lead to waves of scared people taking up arms against the stray bullets of their neighbours?

    . . . all because the fear of terror has devoured their souls.

    FDR said it best, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
    So, we're afraid of the fear, as we should be?

    I'd say it's impossible for fear to have "devoured their souls", those spirits have been gone a long time. That's why they couldn't tell the difference between People and Corporations.

    It's almost like they didn't really mean it when they repeated the quote with zeal, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" -- I mean, they've hardly any damn liberty left, WTF do they expect?

    "Land of the Brave" my ass!

  11. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by Schmorgluck · · Score: 2

    Then there was the case in Dearborn last weekend of "sudden Jihad syndrome" where a muslim tried to rundown 9 Christians protesting a muslim fair thing. He's been charged with attempted murder.

    That incident had nothing to do with jihadism and everything to do with Christian fundies playing party poopers. I'm not saying his course of action was legitimate, but provocating and insulting rarely results in constructive outcomes.

    --
    There's nothing like $HOME
  12. Re:A small foreshadowing of the US's future. by sirambrose · · Score: 2

    The passage suggests that a seperation of church and state is permissible, but not required. Jesus said that paying taxes was required even if the government did not enforce religious law. If Jesus felt that Government was required to enforce religious law, he would have stated that ceaser's government was illegitimate and that paying taxes to him was forbidden.

    I don't believe that there is any passage in the new testament that encourages theocratic government. Groups like the Westbroro Baptist church claim that god wants government to enforce old testament law even though the new testament focuses on spreading religion to people instead of using government to force people to follow divine law.

  13. Acid Attacks by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

    Just because the WHO says the girls haven't been poisoned doesn't mean they are not being attacked. Girls have had acid thrown in their faces repeatedly. And when you're face is scared for life, there's no dispute that it happened:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/world/asia/14kandahar.html?pagewanted=all
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/asia/14iht-kandahar.1.17822365.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-4631708.html

  14. Re:I smell a rat here by Zironic · · Score: 2

    Just because you have a criminal as your next door neighbour doesn't mean everything bad that happens to you is something your neighbour did. It might be very convenient to blame everything on him, but it's more constructive to look into the actual cause first.

  15. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by khallow · · Score: 2

    That's why they couldn't tell the difference between People and Corporations.

    A moderately insightful comment turns to shit with this sentence. Nobody, including the court systems of the world, actually makes that mistake. I see this ranting against corporate personhood as another form of theater. Doesn't make us any more free than groping crotches does in airports.

    It's almost like they didn't really mean it when they repeated the quote with zeal, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" -- I mean, they've hardly any damn liberty left, WTF do they expect?

    What do you think is the appropriate response to tyranny? Roll over and let them scratch your belly? Bark at shadows? At some point, you have to actually resist the actual tyranny.

  16. Re:WHO by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heh, whippersnapper at least you know what an Amiga is, I'll give you props for that. I'll stand by the WHO comment though no matter how they downmod me. They're a pack of liars. Like I said, I may have doubted the claims at first but now that WHO says it didn't happen I have to think it might be true. If they say it's sunny I'm taking a flashlight. By the way, if you need a hard drive for that A500 I've got a GVP A530 for sale too. ;)

  17. As I expected by tgibbs · · Score: 2

    "Mass hysteria" (an unfortunate term for a real phenomenon, IMO) was my guess from the outset, based on
    1. The symptoms reported are typical of mass hysteria.
    2. Nobody claimed responsibility (somewhat unusual for a terrorist attack).
    3. Symptoms resolved fairly rapidly, with no deaths (so pretty incompetent poisoning, if that was what it was, but typical of mass hysteria)

  18. Re:It's not "Mass Hysteria"; it's "Mass Terror" . by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

    Christianity is (obviously) based on the teachings in the Old Testament, but it doesn't end there. Otherwise, Christians would just be Jews.

    1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

    But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

    9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

    11“No one, sir,” she said.