Gulf War Scientific Committee Meeting Minutes, November 1997

Prior to reading the Meeting Minutes, please read a few comments made by the head of the Department of Defense's investigative effort into Gulf War illnesses.
Keep in mind when reading that rather than promoting Force Protection as in the Anthrax Vaccination program, the DOD wants to go in the opposite direction in Force Protection in the area of exposure and contamination with DU. Bernard Rostker, by his comments that current guidance is too stringent, (see their Environmental Exposure report) is trying to weaken Force Protection. The DOD, in trying to make the training weak, is ensuring more soldiers will be exposed.
I apologize for the length, but reading them before reading the Meeting Minutes puts the DOD (and other) investigation(s) into perspective.

Remarks by Dr. Bernard Rostker
At the American Legion Washington Conference
March 23, 1998
Washington, D.C.

"The best answer is the actual exposure to depleted uranium is not medically significant. Let me be precise, to date
DU exposure has not produced any medically detectable effects."

"The soil and air samples were at background levels."

"In 1994, the Army monitored the most heavily DU contaminated area where the Iraqi destroyed vehicles were
stored and all of the levels were within acceptable regulatory requirements."

(Editor's comments: In regards to the last two quotes above, I have a report on soil sampling performed by the
DOD and by a Kuwaiti researcher which show areas that were above background levels.)

"Moreover, the extensive testing before the war and monitoring of those most exposed to DU after the war, shows
that exposure to DU on the battlefield is not medically significant."

Remarks by Dr. Bernard Rostker
At the American Legion National Convention
September 8, 1998
New Orleans, Louisiana

"The best current information suggests that the actual exposure to depleted uranium during the Gulf War was not medically significant."

"Another more temperate version interpretation of that statement was suggested in a recent letter from the American Legion's Persian Gulf Task Force which says, "The American Legion is awaiting the completion of the ongoing research agenda before it will concur with definitive statements regarding the causes of Gulf War Illnesses. We (the American Legion) acknowledge, however, that the available scientific evidence weighs against DU as a likely risk factor for GWI."

"Level III - An "all others" group whose exposures were largely incidental and very brief. This group includes individuals who entered DU-contaminated Iraqi equipment, troops downwind from burning Iraqi or US equipment struck by DU rounds, or personnel downwind from burning DU ammunition."

(Editor's comments: The above statement that "exposures were largely incidental and very brief" in Level III soldiers does not take into account the soldiers who occupied battlegrounds for many days after DU was used on the battlefield they were occupying, or the amount of DU dust churned up by vehicles moving through the battlefield and resulting heavy exposure of those within the dust.)

"From the VA in their 1997 Annual Report to Congress, published last March, "Preliminary results from clinical follow-up study at the Baltimore VA Medical Center of 33 Gulf War veterans with embedded DU fragments show neither evidence of renal damage nor any other long term consequences to date."

"While no clinically significant adverse effects of DU have been evident to date in this group, some abnormalities have been detected on specialized testing."

(Editor's comments: Both the DOD and VA are very aware of tumors in at least one of the veterans who is currently in the monitoring program. If tumors are not "clinically significant adverse effects", they should provide their definition in the next report on DU exposures. Rather than provide the medial treatment for soldiers who have been adversely affected, OSA/GWI is burdening sick veterans by demanding they provide medical research to prove the medical effects are from DU.)

From the Presidential Advisory Committee in their 1996 report, "It is unlikely that health effects reported by Gulf War veterans today are the result of exposure to DU during the Gulf War."

(Editor's comments: Considering the Presidential Advisory Committee refused to do significant research into Depleted Uranium exposures of Gulf War veterans, and their flippant dismissal of whether it could cause birth defects (Joyce Lashof, PAC hearing in Chicago in response to questions/comments from the members of the Committee), the DOD should look elsewhere for information with more credibility.)

"Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been monitoring 33 vets who were seriously injured in friendly fire incidents involving depleted uranium...........These veterans are being followed very carefully and a number of different medical tests are being done to determine if the depleted uranium fragments are causing any health problems."

(Editor's comments: Two Comments. One. Why did it take until 1993 to start monitoring these veterans? Medical follow-up of known exposed veterans was recommended IN 1991 to Command, these requests were ignored. Veterans that were known to have been exposed, and required by law and Army regulation to be medically followed immediately, were ignored. Two. These veterans have not been "followed very carefully". In fact, in reading the interviews posted in the End Notes section of OSA/GWI's Environmental Exposure report, one will find that the VA and DOD cannot even find all of the veterans that were initially examined. The interviews also show that these veterans described often as "followed very carefully" have only been provided two exams since their return from the Gulf.)

"Let me raise one final point The American Legion has been a leader in pressuring the DoD in DU training."

(Editor's comments: If the American Legion had truly been a leader in pressuring the DoD in DU training rather than cheerleaders for OSA/GWI, we would have had training on the hazards of DU in 1993 when the GAO first recommended it, and the Army agreed to provide it, rather than starting training after Gulf War veterans organizations pressured DOD. (see TRADOC orders ordering training to begin on the hazards of DU). Further, those veterans who are suffering from tumors caused by their DU wounds would not have to provide their own medical research on the effects of DU and a courtroom standard of evidence as demanded by OSA/GWI's Jeff Prather.)

"Again, in closing, let me say that I concur with the position taken by our organization. Specifically, "The American Legion is awaiting the completion of the ongoing research agenda before it will concur with definitive statements regarding the causes of Gulf War Illnesses. We (the American Legion) acknowledge, however, that the available scientific evidence weighs against DU as a likely risk factor for GWI." "

As requested by OSA/GWI, below is the evidence that DU exposures ARE medically significant.
They claim these significant medical results were not included in the Environmental Exposure report because the VA was trying to publish them in a medical journal. What is the focus here? Publication or help for wounded and ill Gulf War veterans? Also, why would non-research medical data gathered from this monitoring be published? After all, the DOD has said the Baltimore Monitoring program is not medical research.

UPDATE! The recently released RAND report on DU was an exercise in how to support predetermined conclusions. They have ignored significant data available since 1961 (data we have obtained).

It is interesting that RAND included information from the Baltimore DU Program, yet OSAGWI ignored the same information when writing their report. It didn't matter since they too came to erroneous conclusions.

Gulf War Expert Scientific Committee
Meeting Minutes
November 17 and 18, 1997