<H3 style="FONT-SIZE: 17px; MARGIN: 15px 0px 5px; COLOR: #000000">Scientific panel concludes Gulf War syndrome is a legitimate illness.</H3>NBC Nightly News (11/17, story 11, 0:40, Williams) reported, "A major federal study released" Monday "puts to rest the question of whether Gulf War Syndrome...is real or not." The "450-page report concludes that exposure to toxic chemicals, including a drug meant to protect troops from nerve gas, sickened one in four of the almost 700,000 veterans in the 1990 to '91 conflict. Veterans' groups said today's report vindicates them after years of denial on the part of their government."
The Los Angeles Times (11/18, Engel, Maugh II) reports that the panel, "chartered by Congress, cites nerve gas drug and pesticides used during the conflict as being associated with veterans' neurological problems." And, in stark contrast to "nearly two decades of government denials," the panel "concluded that Gulf War syndrome is real and still afflicts nearly a quarter of the 700,000 U.S. troops who served in the 1991 conflict." According to the report, "two chemical exposures [are] consistently associated with the disorder: the drug pyridostigmine bromide, given to troops to protect against nerve gas, and pesticides that were widely used -- and often overused -- to protect against sand flies and other pests."
UPI (11/18) adds, "Many Gulf War veterans reported problems with memory and concentration, persistent headaches, unexplained fatigue, and widespread pain. Other complaints include chronic digestive problems, respiratory symptoms, and skin rashes." The scientific panel, as well as veterans, "called upon Congress to appropriate $60 million annually to conduct research into finding a cure for the disorder," since "there are currently no treatments."
According to CNN (11/18, Silverleib), the panel noted that "few veterans afflicted with Gulf War illness have recovered over time."
The panelists "compared [the government's] foot-dragging and denials to the treatment of earlier troops who claimed that they'd been dangerously exposed to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides in Vietnam and radiation during World War II," McClatchy (11/17, Goldstein) reported. The scientists also charged that "federal research into the causes behind the mysterious malady has 'not been effective,'" and stated that "there is...a common perception that federal policymakers have not vigorously pursued key research in this area and that federal agencies have disincentives...for providing definitive answers to Gulf War health questions."
These "findings led to immediate calls for official action on both sides of the Atlantic," the U.K.'s Independent (11/18, Sengupta) notes. "In the U.K., troops' welfare groups said the British Government must do more to help those affected, and carry out its own comprehensive research." Like the U.S. government, "the British Government has insisted there is not enough scientific evidence so far to prove the existence of Gulf War syndrome. But, it has agreed to offer war pensions to members of the forces who became ill after serving in the first Gulf war."
HealthDay (11/17, Reinberg) noted that, according to the panelists, "Gulf War veterans have much higher rates of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease) than other veterans, and soldiers who were downwind from large-scale munitions demolitions in 1991 have died from brain cancer at twice the rate of other Gulf War veterans." In order to reach these conclusions, "the panel reviewed evidence about a wide range of possible environmental exposures that could cause Gulf War illness. That review included hundreds of studies of Gulf War veterans, research in other groups of populations, animal studies of toxic exposures, and government investigations about events and exposures during the Gulf War." The USA Today (11/17, Winter) On Deadline blog and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (11/17, Barber) Now Hear This: Seattle's Military Blog also covered the story.
Question
mike/3/8/cav
<H3 style="FONT-SIZE: 17px; MARGIN: 15px 0px 5px; COLOR: #000000">Scientific panel concludes Gulf War syndrome is a legitimate illness.</H3>NBC Nightly News (11/17, story 11, 0:40, Williams) reported, "A major federal study released" Monday "puts to rest the question of whether Gulf War Syndrome...is real or not." The "450-page report concludes that exposure to toxic chemicals, including a drug meant to protect troops from nerve gas, sickened one in four of the almost 700,000 veterans in the 1990 to '91 conflict. Veterans' groups said today's report vindicates them after years of denial on the part of their government."
The Los Angeles Times (11/18, Engel, Maugh II) reports that the panel, "chartered by Congress, cites nerve gas drug and pesticides used during the conflict as being associated with veterans' neurological problems." And, in stark contrast to "nearly two decades of government denials," the panel "concluded that Gulf War syndrome is real and still afflicts nearly a quarter of the 700,000 U.S. troops who served in the 1991 conflict." According to the report, "two chemical exposures [are] consistently associated with the disorder: the drug pyridostigmine bromide, given to troops to protect against nerve gas, and pesticides that were widely used -- and often overused -- to protect against sand flies and other pests."
UPI (11/18) adds, "Many Gulf War veterans reported problems with memory and concentration, persistent headaches, unexplained fatigue, and widespread pain. Other complaints include chronic digestive problems, respiratory symptoms, and skin rashes." The scientific panel, as well as veterans, "called upon Congress to appropriate $60 million annually to conduct research into finding a cure for the disorder," since "there are currently no treatments."
According to CNN (11/18, Silverleib), the panel noted that "few veterans afflicted with Gulf War illness have recovered over time."
The panelists "compared [the government's] foot-dragging and denials to the treatment of earlier troops who claimed that they'd been dangerously exposed to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides in Vietnam and radiation during World War II," McClatchy (11/17, Goldstein) reported. The scientists also charged that "federal research into the causes behind the mysterious malady has 'not been effective,'" and stated that "there is...a common perception that federal policymakers have not vigorously pursued key research in this area and that federal agencies have disincentives...for providing definitive answers to Gulf War health questions."
These "findings led to immediate calls for official action on both sides of the Atlantic," the U.K.'s Independent (11/18, Sengupta) notes. "In the U.K., troops' welfare groups said the British Government must do more to help those affected, and carry out its own comprehensive research." Like the U.S. government, "the British Government has insisted there is not enough scientific evidence so far to prove the existence of Gulf War syndrome. But, it has agreed to offer war pensions to members of the forces who became ill after serving in the first Gulf war."
HealthDay (11/17, Reinberg) noted that, according to the panelists, "Gulf War veterans have much higher rates of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease) than other veterans, and soldiers who were downwind from large-scale munitions demolitions in 1991 have died from brain cancer at twice the rate of other Gulf War veterans." In order to reach these conclusions, "the panel reviewed evidence about a wide range of possible environmental exposures that could cause Gulf War illness. That review included hundreds of studies of Gulf War veterans, research in other groups of populations, animal studies of toxic exposures, and government investigations about events and exposures during the Gulf War." The USA Today (11/17, Winter) On Deadline blog and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (11/17, Barber) Now Hear This: Seattle's Military Blog also covered the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
5
4
1
Popular Days
Mar 2
7
Mar 3
1
Mar 13
1
Sep 25
1
Top Posters For This Question
mike/3/8/cav 5 posts
bbknor 4 posts
BFR 1 post
Popular Days
Mar 2 2009
7 posts
Mar 3 2009
1 post
Mar 13 2009
1 post
Sep 25 2012
1 post
9 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now