Gulf War Syndrome cause
SnoopisTDI
04-07-2005, 02:04 AM
I was talking to a guy at the range this weekend and he mentioned something I had never heard before- they've discovered that Gulf War Syndrome was most likely caused by low-level exposure to sarin gas.
I guess it's not exactly new information, but it was news to me.
Sarin 'Gulf war syndrome cause' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3979975.stm)
I guess it's not exactly new information, but it was news to me.
Sarin 'Gulf war syndrome cause' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3979975.stm)
taranaki
04-07-2005, 03:20 AM
I was talking to a guy at the range this weekend and he mentioned something I had never heard before- they've discovered that Gulf War Syndrome was most likely caused by low-level exposure to sarin gas.
I guess it's not exactly new information, but it was news to me.
Sarin 'Gulf war syndrome cause' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3979975.stm)
where do you get the idea that it's 'most likely' caused by sarin?
From the first line of the article..............Gulf war syndrome may have been caused by
May.
not 'most likely'.
It's a theory, but then so is the theory that 'Gulf War Sydrome' is a beat up for the benefit of the lawsuit industry.All combat situations are unhealthy, battle fatigue is nothing new.
I guess it's not exactly new information, but it was news to me.
Sarin 'Gulf war syndrome cause' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3979975.stm)
where do you get the idea that it's 'most likely' caused by sarin?
From the first line of the article..............Gulf war syndrome may have been caused by
May.
not 'most likely'.
It's a theory, but then so is the theory that 'Gulf War Sydrome' is a beat up for the benefit of the lawsuit industry.All combat situations are unhealthy, battle fatigue is nothing new.
fredjacksonsan
04-07-2005, 11:59 AM
IMO it's certainly possible that many veterans of the Gulf War could have been exposed. After reading the entire article, it's plain that blowing up a weapons dump could have blown up a stockpile of the gas. Fact is, we just don't know and probably won't, as the gov't won't be releasing any chemical tests from that time.
Battle fatigue IS a normal occurrence, but you can't discount that the symptoms being experienced by the soldiers are the same as animals exposed to Sarin.
(Yes, yes enter animal testing argument here)
Battle fatigue IS a normal occurrence, but you can't discount that the symptoms being experienced by the soldiers are the same as animals exposed to Sarin.
(Yes, yes enter animal testing argument here)
TexasF355F1
04-07-2005, 01:08 PM
As Naki said, it's a 'may'. I've also heard that they were getting sick from shots they were given. It's all speculation and b/c our govt is so truthful and really looks out for its own people :rolleyes: it'll never be known.
fredjacksonsan
04-07-2005, 02:39 PM
Good sarcasm, "Our Caring Government". I heard it could have been from shots also. Fact is, there are too many ill that were in theater to ignore.
Flatrater
04-07-2005, 07:48 PM
This is amazing to have an argument about the words "MAY" and "MOST".
No one has offered any reasons to counter the Sarin theory, so knock on the "MAY" word to try and discredit the topic starter.
No one has offered any reasons to counter the Sarin theory, so knock on the "MAY" word to try and discredit the topic starter.
taranaki
04-08-2005, 12:33 AM
This is amazing to have an argument about the words "MAY" and "MOST".
No one has offered any reasons to counter the Sarin theory, so knock on the "MAY" word to try and discredit the topic starter.
Nothing of the sort.The thread starter discredited himself by ignorantly promoting the one argument that places the blame on the enemy.
Gulf war syndrome
MAY be a result of exposure to enemy chemicals.
MAY be a result of exposure to 'friendly' chemicals [Agent Orange wasn't used in this war, but who knows for certain what was?]
MAY be a side effect of depleted uranium ordinance
MAY be a side effect of drugs used to protect against tropical disease or biological agents
MAY just be a fancy name for the effects of combat that have existed for decades,coined to give the lawyers more ammo inthe fight for compensation.
At this stage, nobody knows for certain, and if the military knows, they're not being open about it.
To suggest that you know what is 'most likely' cause of it is to talk out of your ass.It would be convenient for the haters if it could all be blamed on the enemy, but the evidence doies not exist to back up that prejudice.
No one has offered any reasons to counter the Sarin theory, so knock on the "MAY" word to try and discredit the topic starter.
Nothing of the sort.The thread starter discredited himself by ignorantly promoting the one argument that places the blame on the enemy.
Gulf war syndrome
MAY be a result of exposure to enemy chemicals.
MAY be a result of exposure to 'friendly' chemicals [Agent Orange wasn't used in this war, but who knows for certain what was?]
MAY be a side effect of depleted uranium ordinance
MAY be a side effect of drugs used to protect against tropical disease or biological agents
MAY just be a fancy name for the effects of combat that have existed for decades,coined to give the lawyers more ammo inthe fight for compensation.
At this stage, nobody knows for certain, and if the military knows, they're not being open about it.
To suggest that you know what is 'most likely' cause of it is to talk out of your ass.It would be convenient for the haters if it could all be blamed on the enemy, but the evidence doies not exist to back up that prejudice.
fredjacksonsan
04-08-2005, 07:52 AM
MAY just be a fancy name for the effects of combat that have existed for decades,coined to give the lawyers more ammo inthe fight for compensation.
True; however there are too many cases of neurological damage and other odd symptoms for this to be the case.
"Post traumatic stress" is well documented, and different than the symptoms being exhibited by those that returned from the Gulf War.
IMO, man has discovered too many dangerous chemicals which can be used to injure people. Example: dioxin poisoning of Ukraine president. There are so many things out there that we have created, it will likely never be known what the true cause of gulf war syndrome is.
True; however there are too many cases of neurological damage and other odd symptoms for this to be the case.
"Post traumatic stress" is well documented, and different than the symptoms being exhibited by those that returned from the Gulf War.
IMO, man has discovered too many dangerous chemicals which can be used to injure people. Example: dioxin poisoning of Ukraine president. There are so many things out there that we have created, it will likely never be known what the true cause of gulf war syndrome is.
Flatrater
04-08-2005, 07:53 PM
Nothing of the sort.The thread starter discredited himself by ignorantly promoting the one argument that places the blame on the enemy.
It's still a valid argument none the less.
MAY be a result of exposure to enemy chemicals.
Without me doing any tests I would tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause.
MAY be a result of exposure to 'friendly' chemicals [Agent Orange wasn't used in this war, but who knows for certain what was?
No proof to back this claim up.
MAY be a side effect of drugs used to protect against tropical disease or biological agents
These drugs have been used for decades on soliders and we never had a Gulf War syndrome until the Gulf war.
MAY just be a fancy name for the effects of combat that have existed for decades,coined to give the lawyers more ammo inthe fight for compensation.
Combat stress doesn't cause neurological damage.
It's still a valid argument none the less.
MAY be a result of exposure to enemy chemicals.
Without me doing any tests I would tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause.
MAY be a result of exposure to 'friendly' chemicals [Agent Orange wasn't used in this war, but who knows for certain what was?
No proof to back this claim up.
MAY be a side effect of drugs used to protect against tropical disease or biological agents
These drugs have been used for decades on soliders and we never had a Gulf War syndrome until the Gulf war.
MAY just be a fancy name for the effects of combat that have existed for decades,coined to give the lawyers more ammo inthe fight for compensation.
Combat stress doesn't cause neurological damage.
lamehonda
04-08-2005, 09:01 PM
That is why chemicals should not be a part of war.
Back in the days of swords and shields this wouldn't have happened.
Back in the days of swords and shields this wouldn't have happened.
taranaki
04-09-2005, 06:35 AM
It's still a valid argument none the less.
It's an argument, but it's tempered by the knowledge that it's the only one that the poster is willing to consider
Without me doing any tests I would tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause.
Then your belief would be without foundation.
No proof to back this claim up.
.so...one of the potential scenarios that I offer has to have proof attatched, but you can just straight out "tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause"? Sorry, but that is really,really dumb.Please, if you are going to debate, fdebate on the facts, not your frankly stupid prejudices.
These drugs have been used for decades on soliders and we never had a Gulf War syndrome until the Gulf war.
List all of the drugs that you are referring to, and prove that they have been used.Otherwise, you are just making dumb suppositions .......again.I've listed it as a possibility, without any research I am only saying it is worthy of condsideration.You come along and deny it out of hand, again based on no evidence except you have personally decided that it's sarin, end of story.Why do I waste my time trying to have an intelligent debate with a fool?
Combat stress doesn't cause neurological damage.
Well something must have caused it, sarin is a possibility, but anyone who 'tends to believe' just because it fits their dumb flag-waving nonsense is a buffoon.A little less shit and a lot more critical analysis would make your posts far more worthwhile.
It's an argument, but it's tempered by the knowledge that it's the only one that the poster is willing to consider
Without me doing any tests I would tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause.
Then your belief would be without foundation.
No proof to back this claim up.
.so...one of the potential scenarios that I offer has to have proof attatched, but you can just straight out "tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause"? Sorry, but that is really,really dumb.Please, if you are going to debate, fdebate on the facts, not your frankly stupid prejudices.
These drugs have been used for decades on soliders and we never had a Gulf War syndrome until the Gulf war.
List all of the drugs that you are referring to, and prove that they have been used.Otherwise, you are just making dumb suppositions .......again.I've listed it as a possibility, without any research I am only saying it is worthy of condsideration.You come along and deny it out of hand, again based on no evidence except you have personally decided that it's sarin, end of story.Why do I waste my time trying to have an intelligent debate with a fool?
Combat stress doesn't cause neurological damage.
Well something must have caused it, sarin is a possibility, but anyone who 'tends to believe' just because it fits their dumb flag-waving nonsense is a buffoon.A little less shit and a lot more critical analysis would make your posts far more worthwhile.
Flatrater
04-09-2005, 10:24 AM
It's an argument, but it's tempered by the knowledge that it's the only one that the poster is willing to consider
I re-read the topic starters post and I see no where were he states this is the only explanation. You are putting words in hid mouth that he never said. You are assuming and we all know what assuming means.
Then your belief would be without foundation
Isn't that what belief is? If you believe is say GOD or religion most of it has no foundation, its all belief.
.so...one of the potential scenarios that I offer has to have proof attatched, but you can just straight out "tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause"? Sorry, but that is really,really dumb.Please, if you are going to debate, fdebate on the facts, not your frankly stupid prejudices.
So my prejudices are stupid yet yours are always valid. Hello POT!
List all of the drugs that you are referring to, and prove that they have been used.Otherwise, you are just making dumb suppositions .......again.I've listed it as a possibility, without any research I am only saying it is worthy of condsideration.You come along and deny it out of hand, again based on no evidence except you have personally decided that it's sarin, end of story.Why do I waste my time trying to have an intelligent debate with a fool?
My brother had those same shots as a solider and he spent several months in Iraq last year. He came back with no problems. How come we don't hear anything about Gulf War Syndrome from this time only from the first invasion?
You are jumping all over my shit and the topic posters shit for not having any proof yet here you go posting a possible cause without any research. I have yet to decide the cause of Gulf War Syndrome but I do know its not the army shots alone causing this. How is your opnion on the cause worthy yet all others that think the opposite way as you invalid? Why do you not offer any proof yet you demand us to offer proof?
Why do I waste my time trying to have a debate with bigoted hippie.
Well something must have caused it, sarin is a possibility, but anyone who 'tends to believe' just because it fits their dumb flag-waving nonsense is a buffoon.A little less shit and a lot more critical analysis would make your posts far more worthwhile.
Again Hello POT! I see alot of flag waving coming from you. If you want some of your critical analysis posted here let me know I have much of it saved.
Here are some I have.
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=374846&page=5 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=374846&page=5)
You sir, are a non-contributor.Your 'opinion' can be summed up in one sentence, and it's worthless.Why don't you shape up, or ship out?
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2924431#post2924431 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2924431#post2924431)
Frankly, I'm getting just as tired of your ridiculous dribbling as you are of being told the truth.I have issues with a couple of aspects of your culture, but that does not mean that you have to start with childish crap like this.Unless of course, you are intellectually incapable of debating, in which case you should maybe stay out of arguments that you can't win.
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2920412#post2920412 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2920412#post2920412)
I'm amazed that you swallow all the lies that Bush spouts
I re-read the topic starters post and I see no where were he states this is the only explanation. You are putting words in hid mouth that he never said. You are assuming and we all know what assuming means.
Then your belief would be without foundation
Isn't that what belief is? If you believe is say GOD or religion most of it has no foundation, its all belief.
.so...one of the potential scenarios that I offer has to have proof attatched, but you can just straight out "tend to believe that enemy chemicals were the cause"? Sorry, but that is really,really dumb.Please, if you are going to debate, fdebate on the facts, not your frankly stupid prejudices.
So my prejudices are stupid yet yours are always valid. Hello POT!
List all of the drugs that you are referring to, and prove that they have been used.Otherwise, you are just making dumb suppositions .......again.I've listed it as a possibility, without any research I am only saying it is worthy of condsideration.You come along and deny it out of hand, again based on no evidence except you have personally decided that it's sarin, end of story.Why do I waste my time trying to have an intelligent debate with a fool?
My brother had those same shots as a solider and he spent several months in Iraq last year. He came back with no problems. How come we don't hear anything about Gulf War Syndrome from this time only from the first invasion?
You are jumping all over my shit and the topic posters shit for not having any proof yet here you go posting a possible cause without any research. I have yet to decide the cause of Gulf War Syndrome but I do know its not the army shots alone causing this. How is your opnion on the cause worthy yet all others that think the opposite way as you invalid? Why do you not offer any proof yet you demand us to offer proof?
Why do I waste my time trying to have a debate with bigoted hippie.
Well something must have caused it, sarin is a possibility, but anyone who 'tends to believe' just because it fits their dumb flag-waving nonsense is a buffoon.A little less shit and a lot more critical analysis would make your posts far more worthwhile.
Again Hello POT! I see alot of flag waving coming from you. If you want some of your critical analysis posted here let me know I have much of it saved.
Here are some I have.
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=374846&page=5 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=374846&page=5)
You sir, are a non-contributor.Your 'opinion' can be summed up in one sentence, and it's worthless.Why don't you shape up, or ship out?
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2924431#post2924431 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2924431#post2924431)
Frankly, I'm getting just as tired of your ridiculous dribbling as you are of being told the truth.I have issues with a couple of aspects of your culture, but that does not mean that you have to start with childish crap like this.Unless of course, you are intellectually incapable of debating, in which case you should maybe stay out of arguments that you can't win.
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2920412#post2920412 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2920412#post2920412)
I'm amazed that you swallow all the lies that Bush spouts
fredjacksonsan
04-09-2005, 10:33 AM
On the subject of the vaccinations given soldiers:
I had a buddy who was in the military at the time of the Gulf War. Although he didn't deploy, he did hear through the military grapevine that the shots given to the soldiers that DID deploy were a different cocktail, meant to help give them resistance to whatever was expected over there. No, I don't have a link or other evidence, other than the man's word.
I do know personally about two people I've known since college. They both spent about 10-12 years in the US Army. Both now have similar heart conditions which require medication. I've always wondered if their vaccinations caused the heart issues.
I had a buddy who was in the military at the time of the Gulf War. Although he didn't deploy, he did hear through the military grapevine that the shots given to the soldiers that DID deploy were a different cocktail, meant to help give them resistance to whatever was expected over there. No, I don't have a link or other evidence, other than the man's word.
I do know personally about two people I've known since college. They both spent about 10-12 years in the US Army. Both now have similar heart conditions which require medication. I've always wondered if their vaccinations caused the heart issues.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025