archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b
in/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=TTP
J1QE02&date=20001004&query=squalene

"WASHINGTON--After years of denials, the Pentagon admitted yesterday that the chemical agent squalene has been found in some of the anthrax vaccine it has been administering to military personnel."

archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b
in/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=401
5505&date=20000415&query=squalene

"The Tulane University Medical School study found high levels of antibodies to squalene in a large percentage of sick veterans vaccinated for Gulf War service.

Pentagon officials dismiss the study as flawed and say none of the vaccines administered during the Gulf War contained squalene. (In light of their admitance later, does that mean the study wasn't flawed?)

The Tulane study, published in the February issue of Experimental and Molecular Pathology, found that all but two of 38 sick veterans who served in the Gulf and received at least one vaccination had elevated squalene antibodies.

Six sick veterans who were vaccinated but did not go to the Gulf produced similar results, according to the study. Those results were blinded, meaning researchers did not know the source of samples."

Check out Squalene on the internet. It is highly toxic, one of the most toxic of all the adjuvants. (Freunds Complete Adjuvant being slightly more toxic) It causes auto-immune disorders, and has been banned in some countries for use in animal experiments. Yet it was injected into troops in the Anthrax vaccine.

A very good book on this is "Vaccine-A".

Alternative reasons for GWS:

Nerve Gas:

GWS does not in any way have similar symptoms with Sarin. Besides that:

archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b
in/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=235
2399&date=19961003&query=sarin+Army+low+
doses

The same panels recommended that researchers not waste time on the possibility of nerve-gas exposure. Science to date shows no evidence of anyone suffering long-term effects from low-level exposure to toxics, unless they first had shown acute, obvious effects from toxics.

At the time, the review boards didn't know about the Kamisiyah incident, and now the Defense Department is renewing its inquiry into low-level exposure.

Some, though, experienced no ill effects whatsoever from their Gulf service. Even at Kamisiyah.

Depleted Uranium:

archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b
in/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=ura
nium06&date=20010106&query=gulf+war+synd
rome+not+stress

Robert Haley, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center, who researches Gulf War syndrome, accused European governments of planning the screenings for political reasons.

At a news briefing in Washington on Thursday, Bacon said: "We have studied depleted uranium at considerable length over the years because of assertions it might contribute to Gulf War illness. We have not found any link between illnesses and exposure to depleted uranium."

Pyridostigmine bromide

archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b
in/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=298
9841&date=19991019&query=pyridostigmine+
bromide

Even so, the findings are likely to stir controversy. Pyridostigmine bromide, commonly called PB, was an experimental drug in December 1990, when the Pentagon persuaded the Food and Drug Administration to permit its use by American troops flooding into the Persian Gulf to push Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait.

The drug has been used for decades, at much higher doses than those given to soldiers, to treat the neurological disease myasthenia gravis. Neither people with that ailment, nor healthy volunteers who've taken PB experimentally, are known to suffer Gulf War syndrome-like symptoms.

Once again, the US government shows it's "compassion" for the brave men and women who served our country.

For years, I have heard the following:

There is no such thing as radiation exposure.

There is no such thing as Agent Orange exposure.

There is no such thing as post-tramactic disorder.

Now we hear there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome.

Is it any wonder so many people are reluctant to serve?

This is what happens when the government is in charge of healthcare.

They may be wrong, or they may be right, I have not the background to judge that.

Forced vaccinations, mandatory screenings, certain treatments denied. It's like they're running their own Tuskeegee experiment to this day.

I just read up a bit on squalene. Wiki paints it as a health supplement with no mention of toxicity.

The same federally funded study also concludes:

1.) Keith Richards has never consumed an illegal drug.

2.) OJ is innocent.

The Federal government has previously denied the radiation exposure of the soldiers subjected to the atomic bomb testing after WWII, exposing African-Americans to Syphilis in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis which lasted from 1932 to 1972, and the effects of Agent Orange on the soldiers in Vietnam. The motivation for these denials is to avoid legal culpability, financial responsibility, and the moral condemnation which follows such egregious disregard for the health of those human beings affected by these various actions of the U.S. government. It is sad that we allow our government to continue to cover up these incidents without punishing all those who enable, engage, and conceal such wrongdoing.

Let's not forget the governments assurances that the air at ground zero was safe. Five years out and 70% (I may be off on the percentage, but know its significantly above 50%) of the ground zero workers are suffering from the 'clean air' promoted by the government. At this point, bush was already telling us to shop and fly.

An interview recently shown (re-shown) showed whitman sliding away from any responsibility by saying o-we told NY, they were supposed to tell the workers. How many of these workers were watching tv or waiting for the results? They trusted our government to tell them the truth of the contamination left in the air - the asbestos, the pulverized people, the whole nine yards.

Would any administration have thought first of the people on the ground - I don't know, but this one has shown that they are as compassionate as a stone. They wanted people cleaning up the site, shopping, and flying.

I don't have a problem with the idea of our government being involved in healthcare issues (VA Medical, CDC, etc); but if we're going to have government involvement in health issues, it should never be accepted that the politicians are going to be honest about anything that may hurt the bottom line. Any government-related health involvement should only be headed by doctors, not politicians.

Our healthcare issues should be outside the political realm of manipulation. The air at ground zero was not safe and all those who worked there were lied to. With this administration, lying is one thing they seem good at. They'll lie to re-start the almighty dollar flowing again.

What a Bush-inspired screwing of all the Vets that make his war-mongering possible! Leave no witnesses even if it tales years to die,
Does anyone believe the US military studies?

In reading the actual study and not the poorly written AP reporting on the study, what is startling is that Gulf War veterans have a 29% rate of chronic multi-symptom illnesses, 40% of those heavily exposed to burning oil well fires have asthma, there are statistically significant, high rates of brain cancer, testicular cancer, ALS, and a host of other conditions. Meanwhile, other studies have shown a significantly lower rate of PTSD in Gulf War veterans than in either Vietnam or Iraq War veterans.

Additionally, the review noted that the many cancers among Gulf War veterans were at younger ages than is typically seen, and strongly recommended further monitoring of Gulf War veterans for further health outcomes, given the long latency period between hazardous exposures and the development of cancer.

The report also noted that science has not yet identified a way to connect all these dots in some unifying way under the rubric of a lone "Gulf War Syndrome".

None of this is surprising, given the many years of anecdotal reports from and about Gulf War veterans about their unusual illnesses, and the general lack of attention that the federal government has given to prioritizing these issues during the 16 years since the end of the Gulf War.

What is unusual is that despite the high rates of illnesses among Gulf War veterans reported in this scientific review, the media somehow twisted the report to "there is no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome".

What is striking about this report is that 16 years after the end of the war, with fully one-third of the roughly 697,000 Gulf War veterans on the disability rolls, unusually high rates of a plethora of illnesses including a host of cancers developing at young ages, the media is not questioning why there is not an immediate priority being placed on finding answers to help our ailing Gulf War veterans and preventing such outcomes in future generations of veterans.