J. Michael Beck, an intelligence operative who reported what would later be known as Havana Syndrome, died recently. 

He was in his sixties and suffered from early Parkinson’s. His health began to deteriorate back in the 1990s while on an assignment abroad with a colleague after what he described as a “direct energy attack.”  

Beck’s colleague developed Parkinson’s too. 

More than 1,500 spies, diplomats and military personnel later, Havana Syndrome, or Anomalous Health Incidents, remains a mysterious neurological malady of some sort, an audible and sensory phenomenon that has been difficult to replicate.

No one is certain (at least not publicly) whether these people were harmed by bursts of radiofrequency, acoustic or ultrasonic energy or something else.

Yet something is affecting people like Mr. Beck from within, causing long-term harm while leaving no trace on the surface of the body.

The informational field around Havana Syndrome is fragmented, conflicting, secretive. 

In the last months of the Biden administration, in a covert operation, Americans managed to get a device that might be linked to the Syndrome. 

Christo Grozev, Bulgarian lead Russia investigator at Bellingcat, also stated that Ukrainians obtained a device from Russians, though he is not clear whether it is the same device. 

It’s been more than a year and little has been said publicly about the device beyond reports of animal testing.

This silence is not incidental. It reflects the limits of systems that depend on clear attribution, evidence, reproduction and categorization. Response stalls when these conditions are missing, because the problem does not fit the frameworks built to address it. 

The limited institutional response may also reflect the risk of acknowledging a threat with geopolitical consequences.

Three decades after Mr. Beck was affected from within, with long-term consequences but leaving no visible trace on his body, hundreds of people have come forward with identical or similar experiences and adverse health outcomes. 

Whether it is a categorization issue, fear of consequences in naming a perpetrator or something else, the outcome is the same: a prolonged gap between lived harm and institutional recognition and protection.