Gold9472
11-18-2008, 09:58 AM
Gulf War Syndrome is real, science panel concludes
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_11009917
Los Angeles Times
By Mary Engel and Thomas H. Maugh II
Article Launched: 11/17/2008 09:28:34 PM PST
A congressionally mandated scientific panel has concluded that Gulf War syndrome is real and afflicts nearly one-quarter of the 700,000 U.S. troops who served in the 1991 conflict, according to a report released Monday.
The report broke with most earlier studies by concluding that two chemical exposures were direct causes of the disorder: the drug pyridostigmine bromide, given to troops to protect against nerve gas, and pesticides that were used — and often overused — to protect against sand flies and other pests.
"The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that Gulf War illness is real, that it is a result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time," according to the 450-page report presented to U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake.
The report bolstered the hopes of thousands of U.S. and allied veterans who have struggled to have their varied neurological symptoms, including memory loss, concentration problems, rashes and widespread pain, recognized by the government.
"I've had vets go to "... (Veterans Affairs) and be turned away and told that this is something that doesn't exist," said John Schwertfager, vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy group.
But some scientists were not convinced that the new report had found the long-sought smoking gun.
"Even though we know that the Department of Defense did ship pesticides, it doesn't mean that the people who were exposed to them were the ones who ended up having symptoms," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a professor of environmental health services at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who has worked on previous reports on the illness. "We felt that there needed to be better records of where people were, what they were exposed to and their prior health status going in."
The new report is the product of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, which was chartered by Congress because many members felt that veterans were not receiving adequate care. The 15-member committee appointed in 2002 was made up of about two-thirds scientists and the rest veterans.
Several reports had been issued by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, blaming stress and other unknown causes for the soldiers' symptoms.
"There's something about going to the gulf and serving in the gulf that has caused something bad and persistent and real, but we have not found any evidence for a specific cause," said Dr. Harold C. Sox, chairman of a 2000 institute study and editor of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
Veterans blame the reports for the difficulties they've faced in getting treatment.
"Everyone quotes the Institute of Medicine documents as meaning nothing's going on here," said Roberta F. White, associate dean of research at the Boston University School of Health and the congressional panel's scientific director. "Some people feel that the IOM reports have been permission to ignore these guys."
The new report cites dozens of research studies that have identified "objective biological measures" that distinguish veterans with the illness from healthy controls.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_11009917
Los Angeles Times
By Mary Engel and Thomas H. Maugh II
Article Launched: 11/17/2008 09:28:34 PM PST
A congressionally mandated scientific panel has concluded that Gulf War syndrome is real and afflicts nearly one-quarter of the 700,000 U.S. troops who served in the 1991 conflict, according to a report released Monday.
The report broke with most earlier studies by concluding that two chemical exposures were direct causes of the disorder: the drug pyridostigmine bromide, given to troops to protect against nerve gas, and pesticides that were used — and often overused — to protect against sand flies and other pests.
"The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that Gulf War illness is real, that it is a result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time," according to the 450-page report presented to U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake.
The report bolstered the hopes of thousands of U.S. and allied veterans who have struggled to have their varied neurological symptoms, including memory loss, concentration problems, rashes and widespread pain, recognized by the government.
"I've had vets go to "... (Veterans Affairs) and be turned away and told that this is something that doesn't exist," said John Schwertfager, vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy group.
But some scientists were not convinced that the new report had found the long-sought smoking gun.
"Even though we know that the Department of Defense did ship pesticides, it doesn't mean that the people who were exposed to them were the ones who ended up having symptoms," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, a professor of environmental health services at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who has worked on previous reports on the illness. "We felt that there needed to be better records of where people were, what they were exposed to and their prior health status going in."
The new report is the product of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, which was chartered by Congress because many members felt that veterans were not receiving adequate care. The 15-member committee appointed in 2002 was made up of about two-thirds scientists and the rest veterans.
Several reports had been issued by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, blaming stress and other unknown causes for the soldiers' symptoms.
"There's something about going to the gulf and serving in the gulf that has caused something bad and persistent and real, but we have not found any evidence for a specific cause," said Dr. Harold C. Sox, chairman of a 2000 institute study and editor of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
Veterans blame the reports for the difficulties they've faced in getting treatment.
"Everyone quotes the Institute of Medicine documents as meaning nothing's going on here," said Roberta F. White, associate dean of research at the Boston University School of Health and the congressional panel's scientific director. "Some people feel that the IOM reports have been permission to ignore these guys."
The new report cites dozens of research studies that have identified "objective biological measures" that distinguish veterans with the illness from healthy controls.