Talk:Gulf War syndrome/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for comment: Navy Times

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

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)

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)

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. --Sharkface217 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)

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)

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:

• http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/142/11/881
• http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/335/20/1498

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done 69.228.85.205 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulf War Illness tied to acetylcholinesterase 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)

 Done (also I fixed the wikilink in this talk section heading from ACE inhibitor which is not the same thing as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 69.228.85.205 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

 Done 69.228.85.205 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

There is a condition caused by biological warfare that wreaks Havoc on the central nervous system. Millions of people suffer from the symptoms that often start with a bumpy rash found on the legs with little symptoms. Later severe intestinal bleeding is found that that goes away in several days after the person has been exposed to the biological agent. Stroke has been relevant in some individuals exposed. Weeks/ Months/ or years after exposure symptoms of muscle twitching, IBS, GERD, Insulin problems, any of which can surface usually years after the exposed suffers bouts of unexplained anxiety disorders. It has been thought to be believed that Agent Orange causes some of these symptoms experienced from the pre gulf war era, but sooner to be believed that it began with the war in Iraq. Research shows that after the first Gulf War Sadam tried to find ways to poison great masses of people to weaken a country, he claimed Iraq was the "scorpion" and that he would poison his enemies. A major foe in the war was a chemist who created chemicals to poison masses of people known as Dr Death. A huge fire in Mexico in the late 1990s caused a thick haze that blew as far north as Michigan poisoned millions of Americans and left them with unexplained similar symptoms even until this day. It was blamed on a wild fire from Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.8.96 (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

What Anthrax controversy?

Why is the section about the vaccine labeled as innacurate? It seems to thoroughly cite sources and there is no mention of unsubstantiated claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O76923 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone changed "41%" to "81%" while the former is in the source cite. But other than that, I agree. F.E. Parker (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Further anthrax vaccine discussion

Please attribute all DOD sources and please do not misweigh the article with information about anthrax vaccines which do not contain a squalene adjuvant. The lack of independent sources with which to debunk theories which attribute anthrax vaccine with a squalene adjuvant as the root cause of Gulf War syndrome gives me cause to weigh this section more heavily than others, with more sources to the affirmative. Discussion of why a squalene as an adjuvant could be problematic is notoriously missing. The FDA does not approve squalene as an adjuvant. This section, and the article on squalene, both fail to explore why this is so. The article on thimerosal and discussion of mercury toxicity concerns by contrast was more thorough. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Chronic multisymptom illness

From the article: "A study [...] stated that veterans deployed in the Persian Gulf War had nearly twice the prevalence of chronic multisymptom illness (CMI), a cluster of symptoms similar to a set of conditions often called Gulf War Syndrome." I could be wrong, but isn't CMI in fact another term for Gulf War syndrome? That is, isn't it the same thing, not a similar but separate condition? Zefryl (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspect edit

This edit removed mention of depleted uranium. Is there another explanation of the birth defects mentioned in the DU section? If not, we should move DU to the same status as oil well fires, given our reference to Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses December 12-13, 2005 Committee Meeting Minutes (pages 148, 154, 156). GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed with a direct quote from the report. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Scientific Findings and Recommendations

I put a copy of Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses (23 November 2008) "Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Scientific Findings and Recommendations" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 7,351,258 bytes) up on Commons at . There is a slightly older version at http://sph.bu.edu/insider/images/stories/resources/annual_reports/GWI%20and%20Health%20of%20GW%20Veterans_RAC-GWVI%20Report_2008.pdf (5 November 2008; 7,315,118 bytes.) NCC-8765 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As a child article of United States armed forces, all self-published sources are to be included only with explicit attribution per WP:SELFPUB. Thus, this is not merely "a study"--it is "a Department of Defense study". This rule not only prevents a lack of disclosure whenever bias may be an issue, it also helps stymie stylistically poor passive voicing such as "a study was published". The Department of Defense published that study and it should be crystal clear to a reader who might confuse that information with something published by the American Medical Association or C. Everett Koop. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Medically unexplained symptoms

Medically unexplained symptoms, i add two MEDRS reviews, I have three more and quotes when people want them, pls just say. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 04:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see all quotes and links to references for the material. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1: Ismail K et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome and ...[PMID 17892626]

2: Iversen A et al. Gulf War Illness: lessons fro...[PMID 17707114]

3: Ang DC et al. Predictors of incident chroni...[PMID 16788343]

4: Kelsall H et al. Medically evaluated psycholog...[PMID 16731232]

5: Ismail K et al. Multi-symptom illnesses, unex...[PMID 16687260]

6: Gronseth GS. Gulf war syndrome: a toxic ex...[PMID 15757795]

7: McFall M et al. Predicting costs of Veterans ...[PMID 15724858]

8: Vladutiu GD et al. Association of medically unex...[PMID 15221876]

9: Ferguson E et al. Odors and sounds as triggers ...[PMID 15184096]

10: Peckerman A et al. Effects of posttraumatic stre...[PMID 14614966]

11: Zavestoski S et al. Patient activism and the stru...[PMID 14572929]

12: Nagelkirk PR et al. Aerobic capacity of Gulf War ...[PMID 14529252]

13: Everitt B et al. Searching for a Gulf War synd...[PMID 12455935]

14: Hunt SC et al. Clinical management of Gulf W...[PMID 12053851]

15: Joellenbeck LM et al. The Institute of Medicine's i...[PMID 11901563]

16: Nelson JJ et al. Medical follow-up of Persian ...[PMID 11778414]

17: Reid S et al. Multiple chemical sensitivity...[PMID 11257069]

18: Engel CC Jr et al. Relationship of physical symp...[PMID 11138991]

19: Engel CC Jr et al. Psychological conditions diag...[PMID 10337608]

References for medically unexplained with Gulf War in title, Ward20 has access to medical literature so can look up the quotes, when other people need, pls tell me. RetroS1mone talk 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the above ":"s so that the PMID numbers appear as URLs. - Tekaphor (TALK) 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx. RetroS1mone talk 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong reference

Reference n. 34 is wrong. Nowhere in the linked page we can read that "Independent investigations by the World Health Organization, European Commission, European Parliament, United Nations Environment Programme, United Kingdom Royal Society, and the Health Council of the Netherlands all discounted any association between depleted uranium and leukemia or other medical problems." --Pedro.Andrade.int (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

I am currently re-writing this article to bring it up to a more appropriate standard for the nature and significance of the topic. Much of the previous version was duplicate material, information not relevant to the topic, rampant speculation, or worse, garbage from the junk science industry. Considering the number of high quality sources for this topic they are just not acceptable sources.

Please discuss changes or issues with the new version here. If you think anything is missing from my new and improved version, dont worry, I will be adding lots more in the weeks to come. WVBluefield (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note at WP:MEDA. You may wish to request a peer review or to nominate it for Good Article status.

What you have looks pretty good, but it feels a bit incomplete -- or perhaps it only looks that way because of the organization. I suggest reading WP:LEAD about not introducing details into the introduction that aren't repeated and expanded on later. You might consider WP:MEDMOS#Sections for ideas about other topics to include.

In terms of FA, the capitalization of headings doesn't conform to WP:MSH, and the citation formats must be absolutely uniform to reach FA. It's not necessary for them to use "this" or "that" style -- you're allowed to make up your own style -- but the style you use must be consistently implemented in every single citation. Also, FA will require at least one citation per paragraph.

Also, the {{linkfarm}} needs to be weeded, and the article probably needs a section about the political/social aspects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I will work on this over the next few days and resubmit. WVBluefield (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove these three paragraphs?:

A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects. After examination of children's medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:

"Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans."

In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs."

Isn't that a pretty significant finding from the military's chief epidemiologists? 99.27.200.154 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nov 2008 report found that while there was an increase in birth defects, the increase was statistically insignificant and I cant really square away some of the more specific %’s with the material cited. Could you elaborate? WVBluefield (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that birth defects have been statistically insignificant refers to the specific sub-categories of birth defects, where the sample size was too small to make a statistically significant claim. Birth defects in general, such as are produced by a general mutagen like uranyl, were reported at significant rates both in troops and civilians. Have any mutagens or teratogens other than uranium even been considered as potentially responsible? Here are some excerpts from the Nov. 2008 report:

Although Gulf War illness is the most prominent condition affecting Gulf War veterans, it is just one health issue to be addressed in the larger context of the health of Gulf War veterans. Other Gulf War-related health issues of importance include rates of diagnosable medical conditions and post-war mortality among Gulf War veterans, and questions related to the risk of birth defects and other health problems in veterans’ family members. (p. 24; PDF p. 34)

The three studies most representative of Gulf War era veterans in the U.S. and U.K. have all indicated significant, but modest, excess rates of birth defects in children of Gulf War veterans. (p. 50)

News articles have reported that rates of cancer and birth defects in Iraq increased dramatically during the 1990s, specifically in regions where the greatest quantity of DU was used in the Gulf War. Conference reports describing an increased incidence of congenital anomalies in Basrah and increased numbers of cancer cases, both in Iraqi military personnel who served in the war and in four Iraqi hospitals, lend some support to these contentions. (p. 88)

Which of the percentages do you think are hard to square with the epidemiologists' reports? 99.60.1.71 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Statistically insignificant was a poor word choice as it has a defined meaning, the text says that the rates are still within the normal range.

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions related to birth defects and pregnancy outcomes in Gulf War veterans, due to the diversity and limitations of study results reported to date. The three studies most representative of Gulf War era veterans in the U.S. and U.K. have all indicated significant, but modest, excess rates of birth defects in children of Gulf War veterans. Information on specific types of birth defects has been inconsistent, however, and overall rates are still within the normal range found in the general population.

Considering the shape the article was in previously, I am hesitant to read too much into the sources that isnt explicitly stated. The Basra information you cited has no formal studies and since is not specifically about GWS. WVBluefield (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Basrah information are you referring to -- the conference report cited on page 88? I am also curious to know whether you have ever read about the excess birth defects being attributed to anything other than uranium. Frankly, you removed more than half of the original text, and re-wrote much of the remainder. This is not the only example of statements from peer reviewed sources that you removed. I think the previous version before your re-write was better, and I also wonder -- In what ways you think your version is better? 99.60.1.84 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The material on page 88 you cited referred to references news articles and they aren’t the highest quality sources for an article like this. The report also goes on to speak about the inherently unreliable nature of the self reported studies as well as the low level of birth defects in absolute terms. As such, I didn’t think it merited a lengthy portion in the article, although the material might be worth a sentence or two.

At any rate, the article looked like a sophomoric attempt to write a term paper and was filled with junk science, statements from unreliable sources and conclusions not directly supported by their citations. My rewrite deals only with GWS and uses the most recent studies available. I am sorry if you contributed to the old version, but hey, that’s Wikipedia. WVBluefield (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about a merge between this version and the longer version of 25 November? I'm interested most in your thoughts about restoring, "The November 2008 report implicated exposure to toxic chemicals as the cause of the illness," and the section on depleted uranium. 99.38.151.240 (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The current article fairly and accurately summarizes the 2008 report and given the lack of evidence for depleted uranium's role in GWS, gives due wp:WEIGHT to the section on depleted uranium. WVBluefield (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The current section on depleted uranium cites two studies showing negligible effects which weren't even peer reviewed. Per WP:SECONDARY, articles on science and medicine are supposed to cite literature reviews when available. Here is an example of the conclusions from a secondary report on the subject. Here is another. How do you feel about replacing the unreviewed sources with those two secondary peer reviewed sources? 99.55.162.157 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at reaching agreement on a version merge

I hope you like the merge proposal. 99.34.78.67 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The material you added and the references above have nothing to do with veteran medical complaints and seem to be more of a screed against uranium weapons. This isn't the article for it an is all wp:coatrack. WVBluefield (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say that the birth defect rate, for example, has nothing to do with veteran medical complaints? 99.34.78.67 (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that, but your sources don't link them to uranium munitions and the 2008 report said that theu are within norms for the general polulation. If you want to add a paragraph or two on birth defects that's fine, but none of the garbage that's pupulated prior versions of this article.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by WVBluefield (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The November, 2008 report (a government secondary source) links the two, as do three of the peer reviewed secondary sources you removed. Why did you remove those -- replacing them with sources from RAND and Sandia which only present one point of view and which have not been peer reviewed -- instead of working to achieve a compromise merge proposal? Most of the material you deleted in your re-write was not in the compromise proposal. And why did you delete the dispute tags while the article was still in dispute? 99.34.78.67 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The report did address it and discounted it, as evident by the table sumarising the known studies. Your text is not supportes by your sources, and that's why I removed the tags. WVBluefield (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is still in dispute, and it will be until you can explain why you replaced three peer reviewed secondary sources with non-peer reviewed sources. The table of known studies you are referring to is not from a peer reviewed source. Can you work together to reach compromise text? 99.34.78.67 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

When I tried to fill out the Diagnosis and Management sections, I learned a lot, and ended up making dozens of high-level changes. 99.191.74.146 (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate some of the work you have done hear, but after a review of your (and associated IP’s) edits and this article’s history it’s pretty clear that you are Nrcprm2026 and you shouldn’t be editing this, or any article on Wikipedia. I am going to rework some of what you contributed and ask that you let it go. WVBluefield (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had hoped that you could refrain from making accusations or massive reverts deleting both the vast majority of peer reviewed secondary sources in the article along with the dispute tags. However, that you have not strongly suggests that you are banned User:Hempbilly, who as User:TDC also claimed to be a chemical process engineer from Chicago. I am reverting to the version with the dispute tag and the peer reviewed secondary sources. I urge you to try cooperation instead of confrontation. I hope you will act as though two experienced medical doctor Wikipedia editors are editing along with us, because I believe they are. I hope so! 99.27.201.92 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not either one of those users (I don’t live in Chicago and am not a process engineer) and have not edited under any pseudonym other than user:BluefieldWV, but considering your visceral reaction I believe that you are indeed the above mentioned user. That being the case, I see no reason to continue this pointless conversation. WVBluefield (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to explain to me why you are removing several peer reviewed secondary sources and the dispute tag, why don't you explain it to the other readers of this page? 99.27.201.92 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Resolved

 – disputed edit was reverted by an administrator after sockpuppet investigations

This un-discussed revert in violation of WP:3RR, deleting several peer reviewed secondary sources, removing the dispute tag, and deleting the "Diagnosis" section is in dispute. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of these passages under "Epidemiology" is particularly troubling because their references had not yet been completed with URLs:

A fuller understanding of immune function in ill Gulf War veterans is needed, particularly in veteran subgroups with different clinical characteristics and exposure histories. It is also important to determine the extent to which identified immune perturbations may be associated with altered neurological and endocrine processes that are associated with immune regulation.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> [should be http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWIandHealthofGWVeterans_RAC-GWVIReport_2008.pdf (page 220-221)] No studies that have evaluated birth outcomes and birth defects among Gulf War veterans and their children have assessed whether there is any connection between reproductive outcomes and uranium exposure in the Gulf War.<ref>Page 96 (PDF page 105) of the November, 2008 U.S. Veterans Administration report</ref> Very limited cancer data have been reported for U.S. Gulf War veterans in general, and no published research on cases occurring after 1999. Because of the extended latency periods associated with most cancers, it is important that cancer information be brought up to date and that cancer rates be assessed in Gulf War veterans on an ongoing basis. In addition, cancer rates should be evaluated in relation to identifiable exposure and location subgroups.<ref>Page 45 (PDF page 55) of the November, 2008 U.S. Veterans Administration report</ref>

I have provided what I hope is the most appropriate URL for this reference, a government non-peer reviewed secondary source which appears several times. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your WP:3O request

Re this request: Per WP:3O, "The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors in the discussion." In light of the accusations of sockpuppetry and edit warring made both here on this page and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026, this dispute does not currently meet the good faith and civility standards required for a 3O opinion. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Under that theory, 3O could never be used to de-escalate a conflict. Every step of conflict resolution should have the ability to de-escalate. If you don't believe me, ask Ward Cunningham. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not removed your relisting, but would like to note:

• Removal of a 3O request for lack of good faith and civility is not a theory; it's a fundamental part of 3O which has, in one form or another, been a part of 3O from its inception. Despite your assertion, it is only occasionally necessary to decline a 3O request for this reason.
• I would recommend to any Third Opinion Wikipedian who is thinking about issuing an opinion in this matter that, at the very least, they wait until the sockpuppet investigation noted above is resolved. (In light of my delisting of this dispute, I disqualify myself from issuing a substantive opinion here even if the issues of good faith are resolved in the future.)

Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have the utmost confidence in the dispute resolution process. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree here. When the discussion has turned from a content discussion to speculation on who is whose sock, I don't think a third opinion is going to be helpful. If there's already a sockpuppet investigation underway, that's the correct venue for that type of thing. If the discussion turns back to content, a third opinion could be much more helpful at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sad but moot. There was only one way to find out whether 3O could be used to helpfully deescalate. 99.34.79.151 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Isn't this just a type of PTSD? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some cases might be, but many have nothing to do with PTSD. WVBluefield (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Similar syndromes have been seen as an after effect of other conflicts — for example, 'shell shock' after World War I, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after the Vietnam War." These are all different names for PTSD.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That’s part of the controversy surrounding it. Some of it is undoubtedly PTSD or anxiety driven however a link between some of the physical non-psychosomatic ailments and exposure to nerve gas and other chemical agents has been established. WVBluefield (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No; I replaced a summary sentence to that effect and re-structured the ruled-out causes. 99.191.74.146 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You may find this transcript of a Gresham College lecture by Prof. Simon Wessely useful in answering that question, and also speculation around causality. (He ran the first major study) Ephebi (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Added a few sections

The classification section is were you are going to want to discuss how this condition is categories. Who it is recognized by ( WHO, DSM4, etc ). And how it relates to other conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Before a GA review will be able to continue classification needs to be fleshed out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The only classification code I could find was MeSH's. I tried all the databases in the {{infobox disease}}. Thanks for adding those two sections, by the way. 99.191.74.146 (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

medically unexplained symptoms

The opening sentence, "Gulf War syndrome (GWS) or Gulf War illness (GWI) is an illness reported by combat veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War typified by a range of medically unexplained symptoms.[1][2]", may need to be reviewed.

Medically unexplained symptoms is term that can have a physiological connotation and is favored by specific psychological researchers. While MUPS may be valid wording for subsections discussing these points, having it in the lead without discussion in a subsection is irregular.

From the medically unexplained symptoms article:

"MUPS may be synonymous with somatization disorder PMID 10489969 or psychosomatic illness, where the cause or perception of symptoms is mental in origin, or may overlap these terms or be a "lower threshold variant" of them.PMID 18040099 Because several definitions of both somatization and MUPS exist, and the usage of both terms is inconsistent in medical literature and practice, MUPS is sometimes used interchangeably with somatization and functional somatic symptoms.PMID 16025867" Ward20 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the term, since it no longer applies. Both the peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed secondary sources have stopped using terms like "unexplained" and say outright that toxic chemicals are the cause, as the intro says now. 99.191.74.146 (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gulf War syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The issue of classification needs to be addressed before a full review can take place ( how is it diagnosed, who recognizes it, etc. ) Google scholar pulls up lots of hits so it should not be hard to address. [2] Reviewer: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I will get on this tonite. WVBluefield (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I believe we are failing GA criteria 1(b), 2(b), 3(a), 4 and 5 (stability) at present. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the nominating editor is having some difficulties. Will leave open till I arrive home.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass Reversion

SPA editor RobinHood undoes all edits. Pls do not say cause of GWS is known or GWS is accepted, it is not. RetroS1mone talk 05:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns with the mass reversion of content. The disease infobox for example was removed with the MESH ID [3] were it is classified as an Occupational Diseases. The previous formatting was also much more compliant with WP:MEDMOS. I agree however that we need to present the main stream scientific opinion that the condition is of unknown cause. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

i am very sorry about mass revert but i do not like the activist additions, pls put back the medrs, medmos stuff and i will help. thx, RetroS1mone talk 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am unsure weather or not it is easier to change the previous version and remove the activism overstatement of the certainty of how well the cause is known or replace the good content / organization that was lost.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no qualms if there is a problem with the article - I have no understanding of GWS whatsoever. I reverted RS's edits based solely on the fact that it was undoing nearly a year's worth of edits and labelling the entire set of edits as "bs". That is not a productive way to edit articles and I assumed that it was therefore tendentious. I will not respond to the accusations of SPA, as I have responded to those same accusations from RS at least a dozen times already and frankly, I'm getting tired of it. I will not reply further to this or any other thread...I left Wikipedia precisely because of this kind of thing and I will not get drawn back into it over a few well-intentioned edits. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree this mass revert of a years worth of edits is not the best way forwards. But I too do not have any great desire to work on this topic and am here only in passing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)