Posted on 02/08/2006 1:04:54 PM PST by topher
Overview
The Center For Disease Control 1999 Gulf War Syndrome Research Summary Report (click here to view and scroll to pdf page 10, or click here to for more details), states that animals fed the same drugs that were given to their 1992 Gulf War Personnel developed health problems that were significantly worse statistically than the sum of the incidence of symptoms when each pill was taken individually. The military personnel were given many pesticides, anti-viral, anti-chemical warfare, anti-biological warfare, and anti-parasite agents. These drugs were originally approved in studies that showed them to be safe when taken individually. In summary, each poison can disrupt a layer of protection to the point where several layers are defeated, causing the sensitive internal biochemistry to be exposed to harmful agents.
According to the CDC report, the toxicity of the war pesticides (e.g. bug repellents such as DEET and permethrin) increased 100-fold when combined with pyridostigmine bormide (the anti-nerve gas drug). Pesticides are designed to inactivate the nerve cells of bugs by binding to their internal molecules. A human can normally tolerate low levels of pesticides, yet 100x levels are more dangerous.
Additionally, burning oil well smoke is laden with heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic, lead, and mercury which can bind to internal enzymes and chemicals, and disable their function.
(Excerpt) Read more at beatcfsandfms.org ...
One factor was that things given to the soldiers were not too dangerous when given alone, but when a combination of chemicals inter-acted, it may have caused these problems.
This was apparently made worse by Saddam's oil fires. Very nasty things such as Mercury and other heavy metals were given off by the oil fires.
Maybe Saddam Hussein should be tried for the damage he caused Gulf War Veterans (and the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people) exposed to the terrible oil fires.
I ran into this by accident and I have not seen it before on Freerepublic.
It sounds like the US Government had an unintentional goof - they did not realize when certain things were combined, it made things worse and easier for these bad chemicals to be absorbed and do damage.
It also makes mention of the oil fires and their possible contribution to Gulf War Syndrome.
Ping. Hope you don't mind the ping. I thought this was interesting...
I hope you don't mind the ping. I thought this had a good explanation of some of the factors of Gulf War Syndrome.
These drugs were originally approved in studies that showed them to be safe when taken individually. In summary, each poison can disrupt a layer of protection to the point where several layers are defeated, causing the sensitive internal biochemistry to be exposed to harmful agents.
Unfortunately, there were no studies on what happens when these various things were combined before they were given all of this at once.
I guess the analogy is to give someone two dozen different vaccines for small pox, measles, etc., and the person has very severe side effects and permanent damage because they were given so many at once (this is a hypothetical situation based on the information provided).
The Good News is that this site proposes treatment based on treatments for other disorders.
It is probably worth looking into more (the treatments) and how successful they are.
In other words, hope for our Gulf War Veterans - and maybe the most important thing - a lesson for the US Government and Pentagon to learn to avoid in the future.
The article states just that the US Government was unaware of the interaction of several of these combined would have.
A lesson that must be learned and avoided in the future.
An old, old post of mine:
Gulf War Syndrome- Where there's smoke, *is* there fire?
various links | 12-11-01 | backhoe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/588505/posts
I have never believed that any of this was an intentional poisoning of our own troops, but I find it entirely plausible it was a pattern of coverups, happening at the battalion and regimental levels, and some higher than that, to hide the loss of records, the loss of shots given, and also the threats of the drugs themselves.
But, despite what Michael Fumento says, I believe it is real. Somethign happened to many men and women that made them seriously ill by the time they returned.
WMD? Maybe long term exposure to low levels...
Thanks for posting this :)
I go with the low dose gas theory. One of the patients we treated was a spouse who became ill after doing her husbands laundry when he returned home. He must have put his belongings in plastic.
Did you see THANKS OF A GRATEFUL NATION?
I know one woman in that film, I grew up with her and her late husband.
That movie is a compilation of different peple, the scene of them saying goodbye to the man wit brain cancer was from her husband's death bed; he died from pancreatic cancer, ut his friends came by to tell him to let go and said goodbye
There was a plan that when we invaded Japan (after dropping both Nukes), we would drop atomic bombs on each of three beach heads, and then drop an atomic bomb behind each of the three beach heads - to minimize deaths on our side.
Then when the Japanese brought re-inforcements up, then an atomic bomb would be dropped on each of the three staging areas for the Japanese re-inforcements.
That would have meant 9 atomic bombs dropped on Japan BESIDES the two that had already been dropped.
And it would have saved quite a few American lives - as this tactic would have wiped out the defenses and the Japanese defending them.
But then the soldiers/marines/sailors might have been affected by all that radiation (as well as the Japanese).
This would have been repeated with a second invasion was necessary (another 9 atomic bombs).
The military (at that time) may have been looking to reduce that projected 250,000 casulties to much, much less (at least in theory - probably not being aware of the long term affects).
In the Gulf War, the insect repellents, anti-nerve gas agents, etc., were given to protect our troops. But some of these may have caused side effects.
In no way in my blaming the military. In the middle of a World War, it is hard to think of the "environmental impact" of said actions when people are being killed in concentration camps (Japanese and German), and the loss of life by continued bombing raids.
Admiral Halsey, in the middle of World War II, was severely reprimanded for "poor performance in a hurricane (typhoon)". And though Admiral Nimitz was justified in reprimanding Halsey, it shows what tough problems a commander must be prepared for - not only fighting the Japanese, but also getting in trouble for acts of God.
I remember Joe as a real good guy and he had a very large circle of friends. I'll name a few by nickname and I hope it brings back memories. Mac, Cool Breeze, C-More, Wally, Roz, Quats, Cookie and Schwartzy. Joe used to call me Ky-Oat.
Regarding the patient you treated, I heard a military nurse on a radio show once talking about Gulf War Syndrome and how it had apparently spread from husbands to wives and even to parakeet birds inside their houses. But notice that GW syndrome never spread into the general population, which indicates that it wasn't caused by a microbe but instead by low levels of nerve agents clinging to personal belongings that dispersed inside of people's homes.
All of this is one more reason why in 2002, President Bush reportedly stopped by Condi Rice's office one day and said "F### Saddam, we're taking him out." Good for George. We should have taken him out in Gulf War I, but it was probably easier to do in Gulf War II because we had much more accurate bombs and missiles by then and the Global Hawk UAV to conduct real-time surveillence on Iraqi troops.
I helped move that widow of the Soldier from my home town into her new house, and one of the things I personnaly moved was Joe's seabag. (Duffelbag for you land lubbers)
Anyways, I got an infection in my lungs that 2 different anti-biotics didn't touch, and was put on Biaxon (sp?) to treat a mycotoxin...
And those in the know, know mycotoxins are what most people think were brought back as far as bugs go...
I'm glad you're OK. I'll have to do some reading on the web about mycotoxins. The two big threats from Iraq were nuclear weapons and biological weapons. Those were the "grave and gathering" dangers that Bush and Blair spoke about before the invasion in 2003. Chemical weapons are extremely nasty if you're in the area when they're used, but they were not a grave danger to America and Britain. There's no doubt in my mind that Saddam had a nuclear weapons lab and a bio weapons lab underground near Baghdad, and these labs were essentially destroyed before our soldiers reached Baghdad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.