Gulf War Syndrome Real--includes MS
 

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter

Gulf War Syndrome Is Real, Panel Concludes


From News Services
Tuesday, November 18, 2008; A14


A report released yesterday concluded that Gulf War syndrome is a legitimate condition suffered by more than 175,000 U.S. Military veterans who were exposed to chemical toxins in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The congressionally mandated report could help veterans who have battled the government for treatment of a wide range of unexplained neurological illnesses, including multiple sclerosis and brain cancer.

Yep, this is not the first time I've heard this. Another notch in the belt of all the horrendous chemicals we have been forced to ingest..:mad:

Thanks River.

I saw that this afternoon too! Isn't it nice that after almost 20 years of our soldiers suffering, a commission being convened and finally filing their report, that they are able to report that what these people have gone through is REAL????:cool: Pardon my sarcasm here... but am I the only one who wants to slap someone around for wasting money on a commission and not doing the right thing and HELPING these people right from the start when it became clear that something was very, very wrong?...Arrrrgh!

Hey Sal...no problem...really! :D:p

Thanks Gazelle!

Um.... Gazelle? Or did RW steal my identity for a moment there? :D




Sure thing, Sal... um.... Riverwild! :p:D

Yeah, I agree with you.

I also have to choke back on something that I read (and believe me I have the utmost respect for servicemembers and their families) that was complaining about how long it takes for Vets to get VA benefits ($$ benefits) and how impoverished it can make the family if they have to wait 6 months. I 'bout split a gasket because I thought about all the people on SSA's waiting list for benefits and how it takes years. Ok, so BOTH systems are broken when it comes to disability benefits and they're BOTH federal programs so WHO is gonna fix that?????

Sheesh....

OOPS..Sorry Gazzy...my bad..:confused:

Thanks, Gazzy and thanks, River for thanking Gazzy..:Hum:

thanks, River! (and Gazzy too, heh heh heh!)

my brother is a Gulf War I veteran, and suffers from being downwind when the military blew up Saddam's underground bunkers and facilities at Khamisiyah, containing who knows WHAT vile substances... (he was with the 1st Armored Division, as a scout),

In 1997, the US Government released an unclassified report that stated, "The US Intelligence Community has assessed that Iraq did not use chemical weapons during the Gulf war. However, based on a comprehensive review of intelligence information and relevant information made available by the United Nations Special Commission, we conclude that chemical warfare agents were released as a result of US postwar demolition of rockets with chemical warheads in a bunker (called Bunker 73 by Iraq) and a pit in an area known as Khamisiyah."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome

also, some troops were given *many* untested vaccinations at the same time, when the shots should have been SPREAD OUT over time, not given all at once. (due to possible interactions, and cumulative effects)

in addition, the troops were given pyridostigmine bromide.

Used in particular during the first Gulf War, pyridostigmine bromide has been implicated as a causal factor in Gulf War syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyridostigmine

when you add in the exposure to depleted uranium to the mix of insecticides, vaccinations, and exposure to unknown biochem agents, you have one big fat MESS.

my heart aches for our vets, treated so shabbily, and their plaints mostly ignored for almost EIGHTEEN years now, it makes me want to CRY.

my brother has made it his life's work to assist fellow Veterans, first with the Gulf War Veterans of Georgia, then National Gulf War Resource Center, then with the VBA (the benefits division of the VA), and later with Veterans for Common Sense, and other advocacy groups.

"After 17 years of official government delays and denials, VA's Research Advisory Committee should be commended for their work providing facts about Gulf War illnesses," said Paul Sullivan, executive director of VCS. "Veterans for Common Sense is concerned that there are up to 210,000 Gulf War veterans who remain ill after serving the 1991 Gulf War, and these veterans still need healthcare and disability benefits."

http://www.truthout.org/111808A

and if you made it this far, and are still interested... here's my brother's 1999 testimony before the House, on GWI:

http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/s...16-99/ngwr.htm

When I saw this I automatically assumed they meant vets who are completely disabled and facing the civilian world after being strictly military for so long and cannot work or make money. Not to mention the shell shock of coming out of wartime to peacetime. I can tell you that some vets wait longer than six months so that number is way off. With wartime they are getting swamped with applications for disability. Jim and I see the PT room everytime we go in and there are more and more vets filling it up. Those who come out who can work are faced with no job, no insurance and no experience in many jobs. All they know is the military. So, taking that long is hard on many when they fought for the country and the country is not there for them.

When Jim was medically retired, peacetime, it was a shock to our systems after being in the arms of the military. We were Ok though since we could both work. I can't imagine being thrust into the civilian world after losing limbs and not being cared for by the very system you went out to fight for. We were also lucky in that it was peacetime so things went a little faster and Jim was medically disabled and retained his insurance for the family.

Anyway, your right, both systems are flawed for sure. No one should have to wait when they have put in their money and time. Period. It's no wonder so many are homeless, not just vets, but civilians as well. Makes me steaming mad.

Interesting that they have been able to conclude this, supposedly without knowing the CAUSE of these conditions at this point in history. :confused: i.e. WHY is there more incidence of MS and cancer in this group?

Don't get me wrong . . . I'm very glad they are admitting it. But if they are taking accountibility, as if it was "job hazard", you'd think they would have a pretty god idea of how people get these "unexplained neurological conditions". Since when does anyone take responsibility when the the cause and effect factor hasn't been established? :confused:

Cherie

Cherie, because they are in the military. Whenever you are injured or contract any kind of disease in the military while on active duty you can be considered service connected. I do not believe they are admitting to anything or establishing the "why" factor. They are simply recognizing that it should be covered if it occurs within an allotted time frame, which has been a thorn in the benefits department for sometime.

Think of it like workers compensation. If your injured on the job you can get worker's comp. Soldiers have been fighting for some time to establish benefits for neurological diseases. No one can say it's the military causing them because there are civilians who get ms and/or other diseases without being in the military.

One thing I do know 100% is that these soldiers, both male and female go through rigorous duty and are exposed to many chemicals both during peacetime and wartime. Jim was serving in Jordan the year before he started having symptoms but no one has ever declared his tour as being the reason he got ms. I personally do not think the military causes these problems but do know the work a soldier does can indeed exacerbate the disease. He was on the border of Jordan and Iraq. Iraq and Iran were at war and using neuro gases such as mustard gas. Jim said you could hear the war from where they were. Did it help bring on his ms? Who knows?

The bottom line is our soldiers are coming home with neurological problems either from the hard duty they perform or from exposure to something that intensifies disease to come on. Either way, it is service connected and they should be compensated just as civilians should when they work all their lives and pay into SS.

Hope that helped explain it better.

Thanks Sandy.

I guess the system is different here, and I'm not sure what this result means then.

If we hurt ourselves "on the job", like we blow our leg off, impale ourselves, lose a finger, slip and fall . . . anything that is CAUSED by the job, then we have to prove that it happened BECAUSE of the job, and then we are covered by Workers Compensation. If we can be retrained for something, they have to pay for that, and if we can't, we are compensated (wages) through to life.

If we just get sick, like cancer, MS, Parkinsons, etc., and it is NOT or not proven to be related to the job, then we get Long Term Disability. Again, if we can be set up in another job, they'll do that, and if we can't, we are compensated (wages) through to retirement age. (NOTE: Not everyone has LTD coverage here, but most do, and definitely any government job does.)

So, whether the government acknowledged the illness or not, people would be covered for "unexplained neurological conditions" through LTD.

Is that not the case there . . . that they had coverage no matter what? :confused:

Cherie

It's the same with the military too. If you can be trained to do another job they will do that. But if the disease or injury is too bad and you cannot perform you are medically retired. It's hard to get it through the military too which is why this is a step up for many. Once you are medically retired from the military many vets turn to the VA administration which will usually rate them at a higher percentage. It's mainly that they are covering these diseases now. It's too bad our Vietnam boys didn't get this when they could. Maybe now they will.

When Jim was discharged they rushed him through the military review board so fast we questioned why because some guys were still waiting to be medically discharged after several years. Makes us wonder about all those chemicals. But then again Jim was my secret agent man. lol With that being said, they take very good care of us. Even I will be taken care of if something happened to Jim for life as long as I never remarry. It's nowhere near what they give Jim but it's more than most people get plus I retain my medical coverage.

Guess who's not getting remarried? lol

I'm just trying to figure out what this means to the vets now . . . are you saying that before now, they didn't cover these illnesses; like MS and Cancer (no matter what the "cause")?

My friend, who is a US vet, was medically retired with MS. He thinks it was caused by uranium while in this latest war (came home in 2004, I think), but he has been getting a medical pension just because of the MS (regardless of the cause).

With this ruling, are they going to be entitled to more now, or ... what is the actual benefit?

Cherie

No, Jim is covered for ms and was medically retired with the dx of ms as are many soldiers with ms. They are talking about the soldiers who were actively involved in the Gulf War and came out with this mystery illness called Gulf War Syndrome. These soldiers were given a specific amount of time to "claim" on any illness that could be somehow related to their service. If you didn't "claim" within seven years you were no longer eligible to file for compensation. The same goes for any vet who is no longer active, not just the Gulf War vets. Now the government is realizing that this disease is indeed something and that our soldiers should be given compensation for the illness. By passing this it will open doors for other vets who have suffered for years and couldn't get help. For example, vets who didn't apply within the seven year cut off.

As to if they will get "more" is up to the medical review board. They base disability on a percentage scale. Jim is 100% but was 50% at discharge. He also gets aide and attendance because he requires 24 hour care. If he were to go on a respirator he would get more aide and attendance. It's all about the severity of the disability.

So, people who were in the Gulf War in the early 90's (and perhaps this even opens the door for the subsequent war, still going on) will be covered ... even if they don't develop that MS or cancer (I presume a certain type(s):confused:) for several years? Of course that would mean anyone who did develop those disease since 1991 too?

If that is the case, I think this brings me back to my original point . . . that they must KNOW that these diseases can be caused by something that happened in the war ... so they are taking accountibility.

My point is just that maybe they ARE getting closer to identifying the cause of these diseases (or at least one major cause) if they are accepting responsibility for them. :confused:

I'm interested in this because there are a couple of "industries" that have been known to have a higher risk for MS, including vets and nurses . . . This is a step in validating one industry "cause".

See where I'm going with this?

Cherie

I see where your going with this Cherie but we cannot say where ms comes from just yet. What about civilians who never had any contact with the military or certain professions? There are plenty of civilians who cannot be added to the mix because of that. I have to stick to my opinion that the military does not cause neurological disease but it can exacerbate symptoms simply by being exposed to rigorous training and chemicals.

I think this is simply the military taking care of their vets and nothing more. Gulf War Syndrome has been considered a mystery since it's naming. Vietnam vets had agent orange and similar illnesses. They are taking care of their vets. Heck, they have been in the media so much for not taking care of them so it's about time if you ask me. :rolleyes:

I'm still not getting remarried. :D

Now I must pass the torch to someone else because I have a hungry vet asking where's his grilled cheese? lol

I didn't actually mean to imply that it did . . . just that if they are now acknowledging that something in that "industry" is leading to these kind of problems (MS, cancer, etc.) . . . then they might be getting closer narrowing down what "that" is.

Kinda' like the theory that lower levels of Vitamin D, in different altitudes, potentially impacting the prevalence of MS (not that theory is holding much water any more, but . . . )

So, the next question would be "what" might be triggering these neurological problems in war vets, and I'm betting from their analysis, they have some good clues. Maybe it's uranium, or some type of vaccine, or . . . but if they were to combine those findings with the medical industry (nurses), we could be getting closer to the answer.

Yeah right :rolleyes:, just my wishful thinking working overtime. :p

Cherie

There are a bunch of things that the DoD exposed to us prior to the Gulf War and the results have been the same.

It is more common than most realize...but some of us knew the risk, while the vast majority had no idea.

-Vic

My friend (US vet) got both MS AND a type of cancer that a lot of vets seem to be coming home with (leukemia, I think?). Of course civilians are exposed to things that can cause the same diseases, but the trick would be to use these high prevalence groups to determine what it might be.

As an example, IF they determined it might be uranium exposure, many Europeans, Canadians, Americans, NZ and Ozzy's live in houses that are (inadvertantly) designed to suck the uranium up from our basements. No doubt nurses are exposed to uranium in their work environment too ... :cool:

I have two friends, who were die-hard non-smokers (wouldn't allow it in their presence, even before it became socially unacceptable to smoke), and they both died of lung cancer. What they think is that were both exposed to toxic mold in their homes, and I know at least one of them was (don't know about the other though). Then you run into people who chain-smoked for 50 yrs, and never get lung cancer, or if they do, they are past an average lifespan anyway.

We are all probably pre-disposed to some weaknesses from our particular genes, but it's just that the odds are that MORE people (higher number then the "norm") will develop these diseases under certain conditions. If we can learn what those "conditions" are, we might be able to reduce the incidence of the diseases.

Given that MS is a fairly new disease (only 180 yrs or so), and growing in popularity all the time, chances are we are being more and more exposed to whatever the cause is. I think it's great they've determined a demographic that is "prone" to MS though, cause I think this will ultimately give us some clues.

(Sorry for going a bit off topic . . . and I'm glad for this ruling!!)

Cherie