Talk:Gulf War syndrome

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

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. [1] 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 [2] 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)

Answers to Questions posed by User:Comms50

If one looks at pubmed many refs refer to the cause as unknown. Here is one ref Ismail K, Lewis G (April 2006). "Multi-symptom illnesses, unexplained illness and Gulf War Syndrome". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 361 (1468): 543–51. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1815. PMC 1569616. PMID 16687260. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1569616.  I think it would be better to call this over stating the certainty of the cause of the condition. Here it was stated in the lead that "Exposure to toxic chemicals is the cause of the illness." This ref here says it may be due to immunization Appel S, Chapman J, Shoenfeld Y (February 2007). "Infection and vaccination in chronic fatigue syndrome: myth or reality?". Autoimmunity 40 (1): 48–53. doi:10.1080/08916930701197273. PMID 17364497. 

This paper states Thomas HV, Stimpson NJ, Weightman AL, Dunstan F, Lewis G (June 2006). "Systematic review of multi-symptom conditions in Gulf War veterans". Psychol Med 36 (6): 735–47. doi:10.1017/S0033291705006975. PMID 16438740.  "There have been a number of suggestions that physical exposures such as multiple vaccinations, depleted uranium and oil fires might have caused illness in Gulf War veterans. This study has not focused on this question because most research into illness in Gulf War veterans began some years after the conflict ended and so it was difficult to establish exposure data without introducing bias." I agree that researchers have suggested possible causes but none of these suggestions are conclusive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Two other refs that say similar things [3] and [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove anthrax vaccine from the ruled out category.

Please do not rule out anthrax vaccine as possible exposure agent. Place it in a neutral category or provide proof of testing. I have followed for a few years the research testing done for Gulf War Illness. I request the person who has done this provide research links documenting the research done. Even in the book you took edits from cannot rule out possible vaccinations as a cause. There is not enough research. I have the book in hard copy. I am Gulf War veteran with Gulf War Illness. I do not appreciate people posting comments as fact then not providing the peer research I have requested for years. I have many the symptoms that are listed the only category I can rule out completely at this time for my exposure is depleted uranium as I never went near it when in the military. That does not mean that it doesn't make people ill it does. I am simply stating put yourself in my shoes if you look up Gulf War Illness on the web and found that vaccines had been magically ruled out. The original anthrax vaccine insert had symptoms which listed many the symptoms that Gulf War Veterans have. This insert was edited by the vaccine company to a new improved format that does not list these symptoms anymore. Making it seem almost trival.

Link to the new vaccine insert: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10310&page=229

Notice the posting of systematic reaction has been changed. Notice the wording malaise and lassitude. Look them up and ask yourself why not just put Fatigue and Malinger as it implies? It is known for fact that since 2000 some current military personnel such as Sgt. Brown have had adverse reactions that were well documented in the news.

You will have to find the old anthrax vaccine insert on the web as my hard copies are not on this computer. That is look up an insert from around on or before 1999.The old insert had symptoms that listed 1 in 100,000 having issues similar to what many veterans with Gulf War Illness have reported.

I am simply asking that you move the anthrax vaccine to category other than ruled out. There has not been enough testing done to confirm this. I have asked even the US Army for research on the vaccine in realiton to my blood condition and they could not provide the documentation I have asked for.

From a veterans perspective I do not appreciate people informing the world that this has been ruled out when there is not very much testing done. I have looked for the testing done in this category and it is practally non-existant and very hard to find.

Again to re-cap please amend the Anthrax Vaccine from ruled out area to a neutral category area. Perhaps citing there is not enough testing done as of present to rule it out.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes0007 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review deletions

Please review [5] (not sure about "of some mental effects" there), [6], [7], [8] and [9] for accuracy and NPOV. They all look wrong to me. Thank you. 208.54.5.60 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Burn Pits and Dioxin

There doesn't seem to be any mention of possible toxins from Burn pits. Have these only been used in recent conflicts? Davy p (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Navy Seabees

I noticed the mal-formed url http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/155/11/1033 had been reverted out of the article recently. Is it a good idea to include what that says about exposure to muntions fumes? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Who wrote this Wikipedia page? Thank you.

Itanya46 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Tanya Boozer Desert Storm Veteran Veteran Advocate

Lots of problems with this article

- Many of the links to VA reports are broken

- Incorrect/pov info regarding birth defects.

- Excessive weight given to VA's position (see above comments from Doc James). --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the links. On reading through the article I came across more major issues:

- the first paragraph completely misrepresents refs 1 and 2.

- the info on DU is complete crap (completely misrepresenting the research - the VA's conslusion is "exposure to DU munitions is not likely a primary cause of Gulf War illness" which isn't mentioned anywhere".

The entire article is basically complete crap, and someone needs to basically go through the whole article with a fine tooth comb to get rid of all the POV. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Artificial Sweeteners.

•Aspartame poisoning. Large quantities of aspartame sweetened diet soft drinks were provided to Gulf War troops, often times sitting in high temperature conditions. This artificial sweetener breaks down at roughly 85 °F (29.5 °C) into, among other things, methanol, formaldehyde, diketopiperazine and formic acid. http://www.militaryspot.com/resources/gulf_war_syndrome/

This should be added to the possible causes of GWS. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)