Talk:Gulf War syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

To-do list for Gulf War syndrome:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Requests: Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Missing citation for particularly strong language * Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Evidence against & Iraq

	This article is supported by the WikiProject on Medical Genetics, which gives a central approach to Medical genetics and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Gulf War syndrome, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archives: Archive 1

[edit] Metal Gear Solid

I think it's worth mentioning that the game Metal Gear Solid has references to the Gulf War Syndrome and that the Syndrome plays a big part in the game's plot.

[edit] and the rest of the story

TDC, you might want to re-think this edit. An examination of the cited references reveal that they are referring to two different cases. Gulf war syndrome: the legal case collapses refers to "An eight-year, multimillion pound legal battle by more than 2,000 veterans for compensation for Gulf war syndrome" and First Award for Depleted Uranium Poisoning Claim refers to "A SCOTS ex-soldier [who] has become the first veteran to win a pension appeal after being diagnosed with depleted uranium (DU) poisoning during the 1991 Gulf war." I'm sure you'll want to correct this oversight. Dlabtot 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The material should be chronologically swapped. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of link to archived news story

TDC, your edit summary for this edit states: "VITW not an RS", however, the link is to an archived copy of a news article that appeared in The Herald (Glasgow). The Herald is the source of the story, not VITW. The cadu.org.uk link that you changed to seems to be based on the same Herald article. Dlabtot 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already one source for the story. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of Navy Times article

TDC, your edit summary for this edit states that the study is "not significant enought for WP:LEAD" ... so where do you plan on putting this back in? Surely you didn't intentionally mean to just delete it. Dlabtot 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if it qualifies anywhere in the article at this time:

“These findings are intriguing, but they do not prove that veterans of the first Gulf War were harmed by wartime chemical exposure,” said Dr. Daniel Clauw, professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor.

When the results of the study are publish, soon according to the article, and there are some more concrete conclusion, it can find a home here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm rendered speechless for the moment, other than to comment that I'm both unsurprised by your recalcitrance and confident that the long-term consensus will be that it belongs in the article. Dlabtot 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry, this article will look nothing like it currently does now ... lies, misinformation, and half truths (all courtesy of the not named banned editor). Its going to be my mission ove the next several days to bring this up to par with some of the better articles here on Wiki, and I encourage you to join on in! Once all the "UO3 gas is going to kill all of us" rubbish is removed, this article could be a real resource for people. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think your 'mission' to reshape the article into the form you believe it should be is really in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. But, Wikipedia will be here for a long time. Your edits may or may not last. Dlabtot 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, in general, I would encourage you to perhaps discuss some of these reverts before making them. It might be a better way of achieving WP:CONSENSUS and a good article than some alternate methods. Dlabtot 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the material added in this article was done so an editor who was … how do we put it … factually challenged (maybe it was all the UO3 gas he inhaled) . Its high time someone gets back to business and cleans his mess up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to remind you one more time that I am totally uninterested in your opinion about what is 'factual' and what is not. Dlabtot 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be true if it were just my opinion, but if memory serves me, something like 10 PHD’s in chemistry, engineering, and physics took turns PWN’ing the former editor. But like I said, the NavyTimes article is a minor footnote in this debate, and while the information extrapolated from it could certainly find a home here, there are dozens of other more reliable and higher quality sources that could take its place. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I completely disagree with your arbitrary and to my judgement, completely unjustified deletion.

But, for that to matter to you, you would have to be interested in reaching a WP:CONSENSUS Dlabtot 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The “UO3 gas is gonna kill all human life on earth and I have a FOI to prove it” dingus who used to haunt this and many other articles nearly destroyed it, and chased off many highly educated and well qualified editors who were interested in working on it. Its going to take some time to fix what he broke, and if you don’t want to help, I would ask you to stand clear.

I have been careful to explain all my edits with descriptive edit summaries, and you questioning what should be should be straightforward enough edits with talk page headers like "curios deletions by TDC" is childish, and not necessary. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a good time for you to review WP:CONSENSUS. Dlabtot 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK … reviewed, now make your case why this should remain in the article. Simply regurgitation policy to me does not make your thoughts on this subject any more clear. Its high time someone was WP:BOLD here and on the DU article and flushed all the fluff from the user whose name shall not be mentioed, or UO3 Gas man, as I like to call him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It should remain in the article because it is a significant view published by a reliable source. I'm sorry that you think Wikipedia policy are not relevant to this discussion, however, Wikipedia policy is indeed relevant. Dlabtot 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not a significant viewpoint because as of yet it is inconclusive .. but don’t take my word for it, review what the study’s lead said from the source: “These finds are preliminary and do not confirm that wartime exposures changed the veterans’ brains, only that differences exist,”. So, since by the admission of the lead of the study, this does not confirm that “wartime exposures changed the veterans’ brains”, where would you propose this goes in the article. I dont see a home for it because it does not fit into any of the subsections. The study apparently has no home here because it draws no conclusions, and for us to draw a conlcusion from it would be WP:NOR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another puzzling deletion

I don't really understand how the article is improved by deleting reliably sourced information. Your edit summary isn't much help. Why do you believe the reader will be able to better form their own opinion with less information, rather than more? Dlabtot 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about gulf war syndrome, not the effects of depleted uranium in mice. Find a source that states that the effects of depleted uranium in mice has something to do with GWS and then it can go back in, otherwise its WP:NOR, as it has nothing to do with the articles subject. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I see - you weren't really deleting information, you're gonna move this information into the Depleted Uranium article, is that it? Dlabtot 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The possible health effects on lab animals is alread inthe parent article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the citation you deleted does not appear in the Depleted Uranium article. Dlabtot 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT ... nevermind, I already did. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment: Navy Times

Should the information from the Navy Times be included in the article? Dlabtot 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why it Should

Because it is verifiable, it includes significant information that does not currently appear in the article, and is published in a reliable source. Dlabtot 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why it Should Not

Its not a significant viewpoint because as of yet it is inconclusive. The study’s lead said: “These finds are preliminary and do not confirm that wartime exposures changed the veterans’ brains, only that differences exist,”. So, since by the admission of the lead of the study, this does not confirm that “wartime exposures changed the veterans’ brains” and thus has no home under the current structure of the article. For reasons stated above, it cannot go in the intro, and since the authors do not prescribe any one culprit for the results of the study, the various sections like Stress, Anthrax Vaccine etcetera are also not appropriate. The study apparently has no home here because it draws no conclusions, and for us to draw a conclusion from it would be WP:NOR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

In the absence of hard conclusions, the Navy Times source confirms that A) The Navy and DOD continue to research GWS, B) There is (albiet not-yet-conclusive) evidence of neurological effects in syndrome victims, and C) more research is needed. It might not be a bad source for a line in the lead such as "The Department of Defense continues to research the disease." or as a see also link at the bottom of the article. It's a valid source, though, and should be included somehow. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many other sources, including the VA, that confirms that the DOD is still doing research into GWS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I find the article in the Navy Times easy to read, and therefore useful. I also agree that it is not conclusive, so if the article is to be used, it should be used to complement not so easily accesible (i.e. easy to read) sources. Ga-david.b 12:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good source, but it's results shouldn't be put in the article because the study says it's not finished yet. However as a compromise, I would be very happy to see the studie's results in article with a big fat “These finds are preliminary and do not confirm that wartime exposures changed the veterans’ brains, only that differences exist.” stuck after it. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is inconclusive, it is still research. As long as it is from a proper source, I do not see why it should not be included. --Shark face 217 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, wikipedia should say what the research says, that it found differences but was inconclusive. Saying anything else is misrepresenting the research.--TexasDex ★ 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the point is of having these RfCs if they are just gonna be closed like this by a Bot - apparently because no one has responded for awhile? So in the opinion of the Bot which closed the RfC, what consensus was reached? Silly rhetorical question, I know, but isn't that the purpose of RfCs? To form a consensus in the face of a dispute? So what's the consensus here? I'm starting to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia policies and procedures just don't work. It's too easy for people to game the system and the sanctions placed upon those who do so or repeatedly flout policy in other ways are far too lenient. Dlabtot (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on RS's

I do not cinsiuder the following sources pass the WP:RS criteria, and will either be replacing the information from other sources, if available, or deleting them if not equivalent can be found.

autoimmune.com
gulfwarvets.com

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant fabrication in lead?

I removed the italicised portion of this, what was the third paragraph:

Since the end of the Gulf War, the United States Veteran Administration and the British Ministry of Defense have conducted numerous studies on Gulf War Veterans. The latest studies find that while there is an increase in 4 out of the 12 medical conditions reportedly associated with Gulf War syndrome, mortality from all illnesses was lower among Gulf War veterans in comparison to those of non-Gulf War veterans.

The supposed references for this suprising fact were given without any authors, volume numbers, or page numbers:

Annals of Internal Medicine. Gulf War Veterans' Health: Medical Evaluation of a U.S. Cohort. June 7, 2005
Occupational Environmental Medicine. Mortality among US and UK veterans of the Persian Gulf War..2002.

But you can read their results here:

What does that last one say:

"Among the Gulf War veterans, there was a significant excess of deaths as compared with the veterans who did not serve in the Persian Gulf.... The adjusted standardized mortality ratios were 0.44 for Gulf War veterans and 0.38 for other veterans."

That is the opposite of, "mortality from all illnesses was lower among Gulf War veterans in comparison to those of non-Gulf War veterans."

This smells like political manipulation. I'd like to know who put this lie in the article and whether they have a history of trying to skew wikipedia articles towards their views. 212.7.31.37 14:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

edit by TDC Is this the diff you're looking for? Dlabtot 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that the user who posted this actually included the links and still managed to cherrypick the information.

The portion removed:

The latest studies find that while there is an increase in 4 out of the 12 medical conditions reportedly associated with Gulf War syndrome, mortality from all illnesses was lower among Gulf War veterans in comparison to those of non-Gulf War veterans. [2][3]

Is fully backed by the cited sources. Relevant portions of the “Occupational Environmental Medicine” article and related abstracts and summaries:

Conclusions: Among veterans of the Persian Gulf War, there was a significantly higher mortality rate than among veterans deployed elsewhere, but most of the increase was due to accidents rather than disease, a finding consistent with patterns of postwar mortality among veterans of previous wars.

Mortality data on Gulf War veterans was reviewed as a means of evaluating the long term consequences of the war. Studies were located from searches of Medline, Proceedings of the Conference on Federally Sponsored Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Research, Proceedings of the American Public Health Association Annual Meetings, Annual Reports to Congress, and personal contacts with knowledgeable investigators. Data on study design, methods, and results were obtained from published studies of both US and UK veterans who served in the Persian Gulf . The methodology and results of studies are summarized and evaluated. Additional research recommendations based on reviewed studies are presented. It is concluded that in both US and UK studies, mortality from external causes was higher, while mortality from all illnesses was lower among Gulf War veterans in comparison to those of non-Gulf War veterans. Increased mortality from external causes is consistent with patterns of postwar mortality observed in veterans of previous wars. Further follow up of Gulf War veterans and their controls is warranted for evaluating the mortality risk from diseases with longer latency periods.

Among Gulf veterans, the significant excess of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents that was observed during the earlier postwar years had decreased steadily to levels found in non-Gulf veterans. The risk of death from natural causes remained lower among Gulf veterans compared with non-Gulf veterans. This was mainly accounted for by the relatively higher number of deaths related to human immunodeficiency virus infection among non-Gulf veterans. There was no statistically significant difference in cause-specific mortality among Gulf veterans relative to potential nerve gas exposure. The risk of death for both Gulf veterans and non-Gulf veterans stayed less than half of that expected in their civilian counterparts. The authors conclude that the excess risk of mortality from motor vehicle accidents that was associated with Gulf War service has dissipated after 7 years of follow-up. [1]

Relevant portions of the “Annals of Internal Medicine.” article and related abstracts and summaries:

In summary, 10 years after the 1991 Gulf War, the physical health of deployed veterans is similar to that of nondeployed veterans. However, deployment is associate with an increased risk for fibromyalgia, the chronic fatigue syndrome, certain skin disorders, and dyspepsia. Health care providers should be particularly alert for these conditions when examining veterans who served in the Persian Gulf region during either the 1991 Gulf War or the current conflict. More field studies are needed, perhaps with prospective monitoring of U.S. personnel deployed in the Middle East for the development of these conditions. Continued research, particularly directed at elucidating mechanisms for these associations, is warranted.

Now, could we please dispense with the accusations because we all know there was one editor famous for it, and fortunately he is gone now. Unfortunately, I appear to be the only individual interested in cleaning up Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I accused you. I didn't know you were the one who added that, and I see you've done some work which looks good. The thing is, what do you think is causing enough automobile accidents for the overall death rate to be more enough to be statistically significant? (which is NOT what the paragraph said) You know that the mustard gas and nerve gas is a neurotoxin. You know that the DU is a neutrotoxin, because if you didn't put it in then you at least edited the sections that say that and left it in. Do you have the medical credentials to say that the neurotoxins are not responsible for the traffic accidents? If not, then don't put that implication in the article okay? 212.7.31.x 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont know about mustard, but there is virtually no evidence that DU is a neutrotoxin and absolutely no evidence that it has neutrotoxic effects in occupational or environmental exposure. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A PubMed search on the two terms comes up with:

PMID 15681127 "DU is a toxin that crosses the blood-brain barrier, producing behavioral changes in male rats and lipid oxidation regardless of gender in as little as 2 weeks in the rat"
PMID 15951092 "the brain is a target organ, as are the kidneys, after acute exposure to a moderate dosage of DU"
PMID 16099620 "the most probable explanation for these effects is that uranium directly affects the brain"
PMID 16115730 "depleted uranium is able to enter the brain after exposure to repeated inhalation, producing behavioural changes"
PMID 16679544 "Neurotoxicity of depleted uranium: reasons for increased concern"
PMID 17357431 "uranium exposure altered the spatial working memory capacities and this effect was correlated with previously described accumulation of uranium in the hippocampus"

Pbt54 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Stress

I haven't made any changes, but the section on stress may need to be tagged as being informally written or POV. It asks questions and also gives answers in certain cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.43.7 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a {{tone|section}} tag.

I noticed this as well. Presumably the above tag was removed; I've readded it. Andareed (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to TDC

Where in the paper you are citing for the lead does it say that the "patterns of postwar mortality [became] nonexistent after seven years"? 212.7.31.x (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unexplained edit

TDC, what is the justification for this edit? Some of the copy edits appear to be good changes to a more accurate and neutral wording, but you also appear to have remove quite a bit of well sourced info... what's up? Dlabtot (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing citation for particularly strong language

The section "Evidence against" contains the following:

despite the Department of Veterans Affairs's denial of having had any patients with [lupus erythematosus]

This is an extremely inflammatory phrasing to include without a citation. As of 2005 DVA was paying monthly disability benefits to more than 1500 veterans whose primary (service-related) diagnosis code was Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Even if the alleged statement was restricted to patients being treated in VA hospitals, it still seems unlikely, and off-topic. The existence of veterans with SLE is known and non-controversial; the question is whether the incidence among veterans is higher than in the general public, and whether the incidence among combat veterans is higher than among non-deployed veterans. The answer to the latter seems to be "no" -- see "Epidemiology of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus", Michelle Petri MD, Best Practice and Research Clinical Rheumatology vol. 16 #5, 2002

DMTate (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In Italy, controversy over the health risks associated with the use of DU continues, with a Senate investigation committee due to release its report into 'Balkan Syndrome' by the end of 2007.

Can someone check the results of this investigation please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.62.172 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a {{todo}} list. Normal Standard (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf War Illness tied to ACE inhibitors?

the paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0711986105v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=gulf+war&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7288902.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.87.116 (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be added to the article. It explains many of the symptoms observed, but not the increase in birth defects. Listing Port (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence against & Iraq

Is this "Evidence against" accurate?

New research from the United Kingdom, published in the medical journal the Lancet comparing the health of thousands of service personnel who served in Iraq with the health of thousands who did not, has shown no evidence of any rise in multi symptom conditions associated with Gulf War Syndrome. This casts doubt on the role of certain exposures, such as the anthrax vaccine itself, depleted uranium, pesticides and post traumatic stress, in the aetiology of Gulf War Illnesses, since such exposures were common to both campaigns for the UK forces.[83]

(note 83 doesn't work, btw.)

This is what the authors of the Iraq study actually said:

If we had found an increase in morbidity after the Iraq war equivalent to that after the Gulf war we could say that these changes were not related to the occurrence of symptoms; all we can now say at this stage is that our new data add to the evidence that there was some relation between the specific pattern of medical countermeasures used in 1991 and ill health.

Seems to me that it's not "Evidence against" GWS, and this study should be moved into the Iraq section, just below. Sam Weller (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Listing Port (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military Experimentation

I find it interesting how it has a link to Military Experimentation and the page doesn't exist. There is pleaty of evidence proving military experimentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenW (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; one of the more important things to note here is that one of the many different kinds of anthrax vaccines did have a history of elevated birth defects in controlled trials. However, this does not explain the increased incidence of birth defects among Iraqi civilians, who were not given the vaccine. Listing Port (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't say anything about birth defects. Do you mean pp. 45-46 of this one? It doesn't matter because the troops that saw combat and those that didn't were all vaccinated. 76.246.149.106 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "nonexistent after seven years"

I have read the source which supposedly claims that mortality increases were "nonexistent after seven years," and it doesn't say anything like that. Look at #Note to TDC above. An IP editor has been inserting that along with other major undiscussed changes. Listing Port (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy and neutrality missing from article

This talk page as it exists today shows that the article today has neither accuracy nor neutrality. So I am tagging it. Crossfire21 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War

75.206.28.31 seems to have a vested interest in hiding the fact that this article is in dispute. 96.226.80.86 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)