Full Version: Gulf War Syndrome
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
Gulf War Syndrome is in the news and seems to be taken as a fact by many in the media. Several studies have shown that when Gulf War Veterans are compared with a control group of other military personnel that they tend to actually have suffered a lower mortality rate, from disease, than the control group. One such study is documented here. Yes, I realize there are a lot of websites producing sob stories and blaming it on everything from depleted uranium to the oil fires. Statistics,however, show that Gulf War veterans are just as healthy, if not more so, than their fellow military personnel of similar age and gender. The only increased mortality is from accidents, a trend that was also evident in veterens of past wars.
Just to be sure - you want us to debate the validity of Gulf War Syndrome, right?
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 12 2003, 03:16 PM)
Gulf War Syndrome is in the news and seems to be taken as a fact by many in the media. Several studies have shown that when Gulf War Veterans are compared with a control group of other military personnel that they tend to actually have suffered a lower mortality rate, from disease, than the control group. One such study is documented here. Yes, I realize there are a lot of websites producing sob stories and blaming it on everything from depleted uranium to the oil fires. Statistics,however, show that Gulf War veterans are just as healthy, if not more so, than their fellow military personnel of similar age and gender. The only increased mortality is from accidents, a trend that was also evident in veterens of past wars.
The crux of this study is partly contingent on the reasons soldiers in the control group were not deployed. Were they nondeployable, based on physical problems?
Also, it doesn’t take into account any quality of life issues, only causes of death. This was a group of perfectly healthy people, many of whom came home with unexplainable health problems and/or had subsequent children with birth defects. I would be interested in seeing a study comparing a similar control group to Gulf war vets and the illness/ birth defect ratio. Not all Gulf war veterans were exposed to the same toxins, and certainly not all of them died due to the disease.
QUOTE(mrspigpen @ Apr 12 2003, 10:34 AM)
The crux of this study is partly contingent on the reasons soldiers in the control group were not deployed. Were they nondeployable, based on physical problems?
Also, it doesn’t take into account any quality of life issues, only causes of death. This was a group of perfectly healthy people, many of whom came home with unexplainable health problems and/or had subsequent children with birth defects. I would be interested in seeing a study comparing a similar control group to Gulf war vets and the illness/ birth defect ratio. Not all Gulf war veterans were exposed to the same toxins, and certainly not all of them died due to the disease.
The study accounted for the level of fitness of the control group and the Gulf War Vets. The sample sizes were huge as typical studies go. It is a very valid study which shows what we all know, that is that young men and women do get ill and sometimes die. It is lunacy to blame all manners of illnesses on GWS when studies indicate that Gulf War Vets are not at increased risk for disease.
Yes,Jamie, thanks for framing the debate.
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 12 2003, 05:43 PM)
It is lunacy to blame all manners of illnesses on GWS when studies indicate that Gulf War Vets are not at increased risk for disease.
Hugo,
The study you sited did not indicate that gulf war vets are not at increased risk of disease. It only indicated that they are not at increased risk of death.
In addition to mrspigpen's issues with the cited report, I wonder if it might be possible to get a conclusive independent study that refutes both mortality of the soldiers and the alleged increase in birth defects for their children. The "sob stories" seem to frequently cite independent studies that can't rule out GWS. Many of the reports that seek to entirely dismiss the claims of tens of thousands of soldiers and others seem to come from either the Department or Ministry of Defense, or from sources closely affiliated. But that's just been a personal observation of mine... I would gladly welcome any independent reports completely dismissing the claims of these men and women with strong scientific credibility. 
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Apr 12 2003, 02:21 PM)
In addition to mrspigpen's issues with the cited report, I wonder if it might be possible to get a conclusive independent study that refutes both mortality of the soldiers and the alleged increase in birth defects for their children. The "sob stories" seem to frequently cite independent studies that can't rule out GWS. Many of the reports that seek to entirely dismiss the claims of tens of thousands of soldiers and others seem to come from either the Department or Ministry of Defense, or from sources closely affiliated. But that's just been a personal observation of mine... I would gladly welcome any independent reports completely dismissing the claims of these men and women with strong scientific credibility.
The reports are pretty convincing to those who's heads are not buried in the sand. Mrs Pigpen's argument that prior health conditions were not accounted for was false. Only an idiot would believe that there is not a strong positive correlation between serious illness, as is alleged to affect Gulf War Vets, and mortality rates.
Perhaps the reports from the Department and Ministry of Defense are convincing, but I'd still prefer independent studies over those conducted by them or any association closely affiliated with them. For some reason I think they might have a bias view on the matter... 
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...?"
Agent Orange
Gulf War: Round 1 (Jan. 2002)
Among complaints about the DoD lying about gas masks, experimental vaccines and the effects of such vaccines, we find comments like...
And then, moving into Gulf War illnesses...
Hopefully that clarifies a bit why I requested independent studies over those conducted by either the Department of Defense or Ministry of Defense.
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...?"
Agent Orange
QUOTE
The San Diego, Calif., Union-Tribune reported Nov. 1 that part of a 1984 report on Agent Orange was withheld and the findings of a second report were altered to minimize the health effects of the herbicide on veterans. The newspaper reported that veterans involved in a massive program that used Agent Orange had twice the incidence of cancer than a control group and were five times more likely to report ill health. The investigative report also disclosed that the children of exposed veterans had higher rates of infant death and birth defects.
The newspaper reported that flawed or altered results from the Agent Orange study have been used to deny disability compensation to some veterans.
The newspaper reported that flawed or altered results from the Agent Orange study have been used to deny disability compensation to some veterans.
Gulf War: Round 1 (Jan. 2002)
Among complaints about the DoD lying about gas masks, experimental vaccines and the effects of such vaccines, we find comments like...
QUOTE
One of the principal impediments to determining the roots of Gulf War illnesses has been the lack of reliable data from the wartime period: data on the precise numbers and types of vaccines and drugs given to the troops; data on the number, duration, and concentration of various chemical exposures; data on the kinds of medical tests and examinations performed on troops before, during, and after the conflict. For VVA, this is a core issue and a long-time complaint about the DoD-VA approach to veteran health care. Neither agency is truly committed to creating what we call a “cradle-to-grave” military medical history. Without such an instrument, determining how a veteran became ill becomes next to impossible, as does filing a claim for service-connected disability compensation.
...The pre- and post-deployment health assessment forms used by the Pentagon’s Deployment Health Center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center contain no questions about the specific environmental hazards the servicemember may have encountered in theater. Moreover, even though the AVIP has been the most highly publicized DoD vaccination program in recent history, there is no space on this form specific to the anthrax vaccine, despite the fact that the anthrax vaccine is considered a mandatory inoculation for those heading to designated “high threat” areas such as the Persian Gulf and Korea.
Neither the pre- or post-deployment health assessment forms contain detailed questions about other shots received or pills taken by the service member while in theater. No space on either form is dedicated to mandatory lab tests to detect evidence of infection from diseases endemic to the theater(s) where the service member was deployed. Indeed, the DoD medical form used during examinations of service dogs is more comprehensive in tracking vaccinations than the one used to track shots given to the troops.
...The pre- and post-deployment health assessment forms used by the Pentagon’s Deployment Health Center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center contain no questions about the specific environmental hazards the servicemember may have encountered in theater. Moreover, even though the AVIP has been the most highly publicized DoD vaccination program in recent history, there is no space on this form specific to the anthrax vaccine, despite the fact that the anthrax vaccine is considered a mandatory inoculation for those heading to designated “high threat” areas such as the Persian Gulf and Korea.
Neither the pre- or post-deployment health assessment forms contain detailed questions about other shots received or pills taken by the service member while in theater. No space on either form is dedicated to mandatory lab tests to detect evidence of infection from diseases endemic to the theater(s) where the service member was deployed. Indeed, the DoD medical form used during examinations of service dogs is more comprehensive in tracking vaccinations than the one used to track shots given to the troops.
And then, moving into Gulf War illnesses...
QUOTE
Central to the pursuit of scientific truth is the assumption that bureaucratic political influences will not be allowed to shape—or quash—scientific inquiry. For years, Gulf War veterans and their supporters have had ample reason to believe that in the quest for the truth about Gulf War illnesses, bureaucratic protectionism and careerism—not scientific objectivity—has been the driving force behind the Pentagon’s Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses (OSAGWI), now known as the Directorate for Deployment Health Services.
...For more than five years after the Gulf War ceasefire, Pentagon officials vehemently denied that American troops were exposed to chemical agents during or after Desert Storm…only to reverse themselves after declassified intelligence reports revealed American troops had inadvertently destroyed Iraqi chemical weapons at Khamisiyah, Iraq in March 1991. I note for the record that many of these documents were made public only as a result of lengthy and expensive FOIA litigation by veteran’s advocates or intense media scrutiny of the Pentagon’s response to the needs of sick Desert Storm veterans.
During the war, then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell repeatedly assured the Congress, the public, and the troops that specialized biowarfare medications given to protect American troops were “safe and effective.” All of these claims were ultimately proven false. The Pentagon’s credibility has been destroyed not by alleged conspiracy theorists, but by the Pentagon itself.
...American combat engineers had no idea they were destroying chemical weapons at the time; medical personnel were not poised to monitor the troops for any[i] level of chemical exposure. Moreover, as the 2000 Institute of Medicine [i]Gulf War and Health, Volume One report makes clear, there is a paucity of animal or other research on the effects of sustained low-level nerve agent exposure…and what data does exist supports the idea that even small exposures to these substances can be harmful. For Kilpatrick, this alleged lack of data represents a lack of evidence of adverse health effects for veterans…a scientifically bankrupt position at best.
...Because DoD and VA bureaucrats have politicized the medical research arena and monopolized control over research funding decisions, it is completely impossible for most non-federal researchers with unconventional or controversial theories about the origins of Gulf War illnesses to receive federal funding. Moreover, both DoD and VA have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to investigating these kinds of issues.
...for the last decade, the Congress has allowed the agency that most likely created the Gulf War illness problem (DoD), and the agency charged with paying for the problem (i.e., the VA, through health care and disability payments to sick veterans), to both investigate Gulf War illnesses and their own role in responding to sick Desert Storm veterans. This is an obvious conflict of interest, one that has prolonged the suffering of the veterans, destroyed their trust in the federal government, and resulted in the waste of at least $150 million over the past five years through OSAGWI, as the Defense Department has “investigated” its own response to Gulf War illnesses. It is also how the Pentagon and the Air Force have managed to squander over $180 million on Agent Orange-related Ranch Hand research that has produced less than half-a-dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers over the last 15 years.
...For more than five years after the Gulf War ceasefire, Pentagon officials vehemently denied that American troops were exposed to chemical agents during or after Desert Storm…only to reverse themselves after declassified intelligence reports revealed American troops had inadvertently destroyed Iraqi chemical weapons at Khamisiyah, Iraq in March 1991. I note for the record that many of these documents were made public only as a result of lengthy and expensive FOIA litigation by veteran’s advocates or intense media scrutiny of the Pentagon’s response to the needs of sick Desert Storm veterans.
During the war, then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell repeatedly assured the Congress, the public, and the troops that specialized biowarfare medications given to protect American troops were “safe and effective.” All of these claims were ultimately proven false. The Pentagon’s credibility has been destroyed not by alleged conspiracy theorists, but by the Pentagon itself.
...American combat engineers had no idea they were destroying chemical weapons at the time; medical personnel were not poised to monitor the troops for any[i] level of chemical exposure. Moreover, as the 2000 Institute of Medicine [i]Gulf War and Health, Volume One report makes clear, there is a paucity of animal or other research on the effects of sustained low-level nerve agent exposure…and what data does exist supports the idea that even small exposures to these substances can be harmful. For Kilpatrick, this alleged lack of data represents a lack of evidence of adverse health effects for veterans…a scientifically bankrupt position at best.
...Because DoD and VA bureaucrats have politicized the medical research arena and monopolized control over research funding decisions, it is completely impossible for most non-federal researchers with unconventional or controversial theories about the origins of Gulf War illnesses to receive federal funding. Moreover, both DoD and VA have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to investigating these kinds of issues.
...for the last decade, the Congress has allowed the agency that most likely created the Gulf War illness problem (DoD), and the agency charged with paying for the problem (i.e., the VA, through health care and disability payments to sick veterans), to both investigate Gulf War illnesses and their own role in responding to sick Desert Storm veterans. This is an obvious conflict of interest, one that has prolonged the suffering of the veterans, destroyed their trust in the federal government, and resulted in the waste of at least $150 million over the past five years through OSAGWI, as the Defense Department has “investigated” its own response to Gulf War illnesses. It is also how the Pentagon and the Air Force have managed to squander over $180 million on Agent Orange-related Ranch Hand research that has produced less than half-a-dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers over the last 15 years.
Hopefully that clarifies a bit why I requested independent studies over those conducted by either the Department of Defense or Ministry of Defense.
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 13 2003, 04:10 AM)
The reports are pretty convincing to those who's heads are not buried in the sand. Mrs Pigpen's argument that prior health conditions were not accounted for was false. Only an idiot would believe that there is not a strong positive correlation between serious illness, as is alleged to affect Gulf War Vets, and mortality rates.
Just for once could you please state your objection to something without slandering everyone and everyone who happens to disagree with you. Unlike certain banned posters I find that you often provide some very interesting or useful commentary; but it is increasingly tempered with statements like the above and that is a shame.
(When I get nasty I only pick on one person at a time...
)
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 13 2003, 04:10 AM)
The reports are pretty convincing to those who's heads are not buried in the sand. Mrs Pigpen's argument that prior health conditions were not accounted for was false. Only an idiot would believe that there is not a strong positive correlation between serious illness, as is alleged to affect Gulf War Vets, and mortality rates.
Pretty rude, Hugo. Also untrue. GWI is not always associated with life threatening illness, but often quality-of-life threatening illness.
The following site has a comprehensive study regarding the origin of Gulf Warfare syndrome: http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/CHEMBIO.HTM
It is a long read, but worth a look to make a truly informed opinion. There is documented evidence pertaining to which troops were the most effected, the level manifestation of illness, and even some reported weather conditions in the areas of most potential exposure. One platoon reported an incident of 77 percent illness. This coincided with other evidence that suggests they may have received a chemical attack.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 13 2003, 02:54 AM)
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 13 2003, 04:10 AM)
The reports are pretty convincing to those who's heads are not buried in the sand. Mrs Pigpen's argument that prior health conditions were not accounted for was false. Only an idiot would believe that there is not a strong positive correlation between serious illness, as is alleged to affect Gulf War Vets, and mortality rates.
Just for once could you please state your objection to something without slandering everyone and everyone who happens to disagree with you. Unlike certain banned posters I find that you often provide some very interesting or useful commentary; but it is increasingly tempered with statements like the above and that is a shame.
(When I get nasty I only pick on one person at a time...
) Like when you stated Izdaari was the only Libertarian on this board who made sense. Therefore attacking all other Libertarians? Let me apoligize, though. I tend to find proponents of big government particularly aggravating as April 15th approaches.
The only large scale studies I have seen point to the fact that the numbers of GWS victims is greatly overstated and that the seriousness of the illnesses is also exaggeratted. I would think the proponents of GWS as a serious and widespread ailment would produce large-scale studies, with control groups, verifying their claims.
This is more a reply to mrspigpen from the "National Interests," thread, but it is best suited for this thread, as it addresses Gulf War illnesses in relation to the potential hazards of depleted uranium (DU).
BBC: A Soldier's Experience
In the above article, Dr. Doug Rokke talks about his experiences with depleted uranium in the Gulf War, the death of two fellow soldiers and his own personal experience with health problems he claims are a result of inhaling the fine powder left in the wake of DU munitions and armour.
Not but a few months following that report from the BBC and Dr. Rokke...
NucNews: Depleted Uranium Munitions and Dept. of Energy Occupational Exposures
In addition...
Dirty Bomb
I wouldn't think DU would be included when talking about dirty bombs and the risks of such devices unless it was potentially harmful.
And I realized that I was perhaps being a little harsh in my treatment of the Department of Defense. After all, why single them out when the initial report provided was from the Ministry of Defense?
Ministry of Defense backtracks on Cancer Report
The Ministry still is standing its ground but they apparently don't like leaked reports that don't follow the "chain of command." They try to disregard them entirely, to the point they'll lie about their sources.
[Edited below]
I thought this was mildly interesting, since DU is supposed to be completely innocuous and safe for military use:
FORMER HEAD OF PENTAGON'S DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECT CONDEMNS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
BBC: A Soldier's Experience
In the above article, Dr. Doug Rokke talks about his experiences with depleted uranium in the Gulf War, the death of two fellow soldiers and his own personal experience with health problems he claims are a result of inhaling the fine powder left in the wake of DU munitions and armour.
QUOTE
He was tested for uranium poisoning while working as head of a Pentagon project on DU in late 1994.
"In September 1996 I was at the Pentagon, briefing on DU contamination and management.
"An individual walked up to me and said: 'Dr Rokke, you're trashed with uranium'. I said: 'Thank you. I'd like some medical care'. Nothing happened.
"Finally, in July 1997, I received a letter from the Department of Energy stating my own internal uranium contamination was 5,000 times that permissible.
"My lungs are trashed, I've got rashes, neurological problems. And I'm not the only one - this is what's happened to everybody else.
"In September 1996 I was at the Pentagon, briefing on DU contamination and management.
"An individual walked up to me and said: 'Dr Rokke, you're trashed with uranium'. I said: 'Thank you. I'd like some medical care'. Nothing happened.
"Finally, in July 1997, I received a letter from the Department of Energy stating my own internal uranium contamination was 5,000 times that permissible.
"My lungs are trashed, I've got rashes, neurological problems. And I'm not the only one - this is what's happened to everybody else.
Not but a few months following that report from the BBC and Dr. Rokke...
NucNews: Depleted Uranium Munitions and Dept. of Energy Occupational Exposures
QUOTE
A surprising annoucement by U.S. Department of Energy officials on January 29, 2000 acknowledged after many years of denial that employees of their facilities had significantly higher incident rates for leukemia; Hodgin's lymphoma; and cancers of the prostrate, kidney, liver, salivary glands, and lungs. Previous annoucements acknowledged respiratory problems at the Puducah, Kentucky facility and other facilities. These revelations and acknowedgements reinforce the suspected health and environmental hazards of depleted uranium which is manfactured from the main byproduct, uranium hexaflouride, of each of these facilites. It is even more disturbing that in a memorandum dated October 30, 1943 senior scientists assigned to the Manhatten Project suggested to General Leslie Groves that uranium could be used as an air and terrain contaminant because of it's significant respiratory, gastro-intestinal based on contaminated food and water consumption, blood stream, and tissue adverse health effects. Today that recommendation has been implemented with eternal health and environmental effects.
In addition...
Dirty Bomb
I wouldn't think DU would be included when talking about dirty bombs and the risks of such devices unless it was potentially harmful.
And I realized that I was perhaps being a little harsh in my treatment of the Department of Defense. After all, why single them out when the initial report provided was from the Ministry of Defense?
Ministry of Defense backtracks on Cancer Report
QUOTE
Attempts by the Ministry of Defence to dismiss a leaked report highlighting increased risks from exposure to depleted uranium in shells backfired spectacularly yesterday when it emerged that not only was it written by an experienced military officer but it was endorsed by senior officers.
The Ministry still is standing its ground but they apparently don't like leaked reports that don't follow the "chain of command." They try to disregard them entirely, to the point they'll lie about their sources.
[Edited below]
I thought this was mildly interesting, since DU is supposed to be completely innocuous and safe for military use:
QUOTE
According to the U.S. Army's official "RESPOND TO DEPLETED URANIUM/LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (DULLRAM) HAZARDS" task number "031-503-1017: Contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." This direct quote verifies that the military still is aware as they always have been been since 1943 that serious hazards exist from uranium (DU) contamination.
FORMER HEAD OF PENTAGON'S DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECT CONDEMNS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 13 2003, 09:32 PM)
Like when you stated Izdaari was the only Libertarian on this board who made sense. Therefore attacking all other Libertarians? Let me apoligize, though. I tend to find proponents of big government particularly aggravating as April 15th approaches.
I am not sure if this apology is directed at me. It is a little confusing because I am by no means a 'proponent of big government.'
Anyway, if you're going to call me an idiot, I would at least prefer the term 'special'.
One more thing...I have found in my browsing, looking for statistics of birth defect rates and illness ratios for deployed and non-deployed (of which I have found many, usually in scientific medical journals, testifying that there is a vast disparity between the two groups. Unfortunately, I don't just want to provide a link, I would like a nice, concise chart like the one you have that I could pull up and haven't found any) that only 3500 UK veterans had GWI.
Juxtapose that with 50,000-100,000 American combatants with GWI. Your survey encompasses 50000+ soldiers, of which half are gulf war vets and at most 3500 have the disease (which isn't necessarily deadly). After 12 years, the fact that the study finds that there isn't really a disparity between the deaths of the two groups isn't conclusive at all, as in one group only a very small percentage are affected. Yet, somehow, you believe this PROVES there is no GWI. I'll say it again...Death statistics do not necessariy prove health, especially for the very young.
Actually myself and mrs pigpen are not far apart. It would ludicrous to believe that noone , considering the multiple hazards, soldiers faced, suffered health consequences from the Gulf War. However when look at the statistics then the claims of Dr, Rokke (wondered how long it would take for him to show up) are equally ludicrous. If the claims of Rokke were true, his supporters and independent studies would confirm a higher mortality rate. Uranium is naturally present in the environment. It has a toxicity similar to lead (Toxicity of Metals, Friburg 1973). It has a very long half life which also means the intensity of radiation is low. There are no widespread health consequences to Gulf War Vets from DU are any other potential toxin used in the Gulf War.
Froms mrspigpens link :
Not tens of thousands...
Even their footnote states:
One of the problems is over-blowing the numbers or artificially grouping many diverse symptoms under one "Syndrome"
Lets look at the symptoms : symptoms of muscle and joint pain, memory loss, intestinal and heart problems, fatigue, running noses, urinary urgency, diarrhea, twitching, rashes, and sores.
compared to these symptoms :
These are the symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (link where I got those quotes).
CDC site for CFS. The symptoms are very similar.
While the symptoms are real, many "syndromes" like this are not due to physical maladies, but rather, mental or psychological ones. Its called "Convergence" disorder where stress or other psychological conditions cause real physical symptoms.
Of course, Gulf War vets were subjected to very stressful situations, whether deployed or not. Getting to the root of the problem and solving their problems is another thing altogether.
QUOTE
Over 4,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War suffering from a myriad of illnesses collectively labelled "Gulf War Syndrome" are reporting symptoms of muscle and joint pain, memory loss, intestinal and heart problems, fatigue, running noses, urinary urgency, diarrhea, twitching, rashes, and sores. Endnote1.
Not tens of thousands...
Even their footnote states:
QUOTE
Endnote1
. This estimate is based on media and veterans group sources. Other estimates by these groups range from 4,000 - 11,000 individuals
. This estimate is based on media and veterans group sources. Other estimates by these groups range from 4,000 - 11,000 individuals
One of the problems is over-blowing the numbers or artificially grouping many diverse symptoms under one "Syndrome"
Lets look at the symptoms : symptoms of muscle and joint pain, memory loss, intestinal and heart problems, fatigue, running noses, urinary urgency, diarrhea, twitching, rashes, and sores.
compared to these symptoms :
QUOTE
Other common symptoms are as follows:
muscle aches and pains, especially after physical exertion
feeling depressed and emotional
poor sleep, difficulty getting off to sleep, frequent waking up, and not feeling refreshed after sleep
nausea and loss of appetite
a recurrent sore throat, feeling of enlarged glands in the neck which come and go
running a slightly high temperature for no apparent reason
feeling of faintness and dizziness
Minor symptoms criteria :
Low-grade fever (i.e. 37.5C to 38.6C)
Sore throat
Painful cervical or axillary swelling of the lymph nodes
Generalized muscle weakness
Myalgias (muscle pains)
Fatigue lasting 24 hours or more after moderate exercise
Headaches
Migratory joint pain
Sleep disturbance (hypersomnia or insomnia)
Neuropsychological complaints (one or more of the following: abnormal visual tolerance of light, loss of vision within the normal field of vision, forgetfulness, irritability, confusion, difficulty concentrating, depression).
Acute onset (over a few hours to a few days)
muscle aches and pains, especially after physical exertion
feeling depressed and emotional
poor sleep, difficulty getting off to sleep, frequent waking up, and not feeling refreshed after sleep
nausea and loss of appetite
a recurrent sore throat, feeling of enlarged glands in the neck which come and go
running a slightly high temperature for no apparent reason
feeling of faintness and dizziness
Minor symptoms criteria :
Low-grade fever (i.e. 37.5C to 38.6C)
Sore throat
Painful cervical or axillary swelling of the lymph nodes
Generalized muscle weakness
Myalgias (muscle pains)
Fatigue lasting 24 hours or more after moderate exercise
Headaches
Migratory joint pain
Sleep disturbance (hypersomnia or insomnia)
Neuropsychological complaints (one or more of the following: abnormal visual tolerance of light, loss of vision within the normal field of vision, forgetfulness, irritability, confusion, difficulty concentrating, depression).
Acute onset (over a few hours to a few days)
These are the symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (link where I got those quotes).
CDC site for CFS. The symptoms are very similar.
While the symptoms are real, many "syndromes" like this are not due to physical maladies, but rather, mental or psychological ones. Its called "Convergence" disorder where stress or other psychological conditions cause real physical symptoms.
Of course, Gulf War vets were subjected to very stressful situations, whether deployed or not. Getting to the root of the problem and solving their problems is another thing altogether.
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 14 2003, 07:15 PM)
Actually myself and mrs pigpen are not far apart. It would ludicrous to believe that noone , considering the multiple hazards, soldiers faced, suffered health consequences from the Gulf War.
Hurray! I love common ground
As a military spouse, I can tell you that incidences of GWI weigh heavily on my mind during my husband's nonfriendly tours of duty. I don't believe the culprit is DU, or anything else on our side. I have a lot of suspicion that our forces were exposed to a chemical or bio attack of some sort. Perhaps due to the fear of a public outcry, no conclusion was drawn. I don't believe we have no earthly idea who attacked the USS Cole either. Just my thoughts.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.