Talk:Gulf War syndrome: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:56, 26 December 2009 edit99.191.74.146 (talk) →Added a few sections ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:41, 14 September 2024 edit undoSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,556,588 editsm Signing comment by 2003:D2:5707:3C01:C7E2:9351:AD5A:41C4 - "→New study apparently confirming that sarin exposure was responsible + genetic factor in the form of GWS sufferers having a less effective version of the PON1 gene: "
(583 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{ArticleHistory
	{{GA nominee\|16:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)\|nominator=] (])\|page=1\|subtopic=Biology and medicine\|status=onreview\|note=}}
			\|action1=GAN
	{{WPMED\|class=B\|importance=Mid\|genetics=yes}}
			\|action1date=06:51, 2 January 2010
	{{Controversial3}}
			\|action1link=Talk:Gulf War syndrome/GA1
	{{pressmulti
			\|action1result=not listed
			\|action1oldid=335087641
			\|currentstatus=FGAN
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|
			{{WikiProject Medicine \|importance=Mid \|genetics=yes }}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|Middle-Eastern=y\|Medicine=y\|class=C\|b1=no\|b2=yes\|b3=yes\|b4=yes\|b5=yes}}
			}}
			{{press
	\| title=What was happening in the world the last time the market was this low		\| title=What was happening in the world the last time the market was this low
	\| author=~~N/A~~		\| author=Elizabeth Dickinson
	\| date=March 3, 2009		\| date=March 3, 2009
	\| url=http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/02/the_last_time_the_stock_market_was_this_low		\| url=http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/02/the_last_time_the_stock_market_was_this_low
	\| org=Foreign Policy		\| org=Foreign Policy
			}}
			{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
			{{Controversial-issues}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 5
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Gulf War syndrome/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}

			== Contradiction on PTSD incidence between paragraph 2 & 4 ==
	Archives: ], ]
			Paragraph 2 says:

			From 1995 to 2005, the health of combat veterans worsened in comparison with nondeployed veterans, with the onset of '''more new chronic diseases, . . . posttraumatic stress disorder''' (emphasis added)
	==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. ] (]) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

	:I saw your note at ]. You may wish to request a ] or to nominate it for ] 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 ] about not introducing details into the introduction that aren't repeated and expanded on later. You might consider ] for ideas about other topics to include.
	:In terms of FA, the capitalization of headings doesn't conform to ], and the ] 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 {{tl\|linkfarm}} needs to be weeded, and the article probably needs a section about the political/social aspects. ] (]) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

	:: Thanks for the tips. I will work on this over the next few days and resubmit. ] (]) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

	::: Why did you remove these three paragraphs?:

	''A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. ] 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.<ref>{{cite journal
	\| author = Kang, H., ''et al.'
	\| year = 2001
	\| url = http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/PIIS1047279701002459/abstract
	\| title = Pregnancy Outcomes Among U.S. Gulf War Veterans: A Population-Based Survey of 30,000 Veterans
	\| journal = Annals of Epidemiology
	\| volume = 11
	\| issue = 7
	\| pages = 504–511
	\| pmid = 11557183 \| doi = 10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00245-9
	}}</ref> After examination of children's medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:

	<blockquote>''"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."<ref>Department of Veterans Affairs (2003) ''Gulf War Review'' '''12'''(1), p. 10.</ref></blockquote>

	''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."<ref>Doyle, P., ''et al.'' (2004) ''International Journal of Epidemiology,'' '''33'''(1), pp. 74-86; PMID 15075150.</ref>

	<references />

	::: Isn't that a pretty significant finding from the military's chief epidemiologists? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ], 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 :

	:::::: ''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? ] (]) 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.

	:::::: <blockquote> 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.</blockquote>

	:::::: 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

	{{outdent}}

	How do you feel about a merge between this version and ? 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. ] (]) 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 ] to the section on depleted uranium. ] (]) 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 ], articles on science and medicine are supposed to cite literature reviews when available. from a secondary report on the subject. . How do you feel about replacing the unreviewed sources with those two secondary peer reviewed sources? ] (]) 18:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

	=== Attempt at reaching agreement on a version merge ===

	I hope you like the merge proposal. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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.~~ <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::: 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? ] (]) 20:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

			Paragraph 4 says:
	::::: 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. ] (]) 20:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
			'''Studies have consistently indicated that . . . Gulf War veterans have lower rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)''' than veterans of other wars. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== IOM sources ==
	:::::: 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
			*
			<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

			== Do Iraqi soldiers suffer from Gulf War Syndrome? ==
	==Comment==
	Isn't this just a type of ]? ] (] · ] · ]) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

			As above. I'm quite surprised that nobody appears to have addressed this issue. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: Some cases might be, but many have nothing to do with PTSD. ] (]) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

			== Possible typo ==
	::"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.] (] · ] · ]) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

			It seems there is a typo in the name used by the Veteran's affairs office. The phrase "medically unexplained illnesses" appears twice in a row.
	::: 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. ] (]) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

			Current: "Gulf War veterans' medically unexplained illnesses, medically unexplained illnesses, chronic multi-symptom illness (CMI)"
	:No. ] (]) 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

			Suggested: "Gulf War veterans' medically unexplained illnesses, chronic multi-symptom illness (CMI)"
	==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. ] (] · ] · ]) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

			{{edit COI\|answered=yes}}
	:Before a GA review will be able to continue classification needs to be fleshed out.] (] · ] · ]) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

	~~::The only classification code I could find was MeSH's. I tried all the databases in the {{tl\|disease infobox}}.~~ ] (]) 11:56, 26 ~~December~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		] (]) 06:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

			== Is Gulf War Syndrome related to Burn Pits? ==
	==]==

			I was led here after watching a medical video regarding the phenomenon of increased incidence of cancer in US servicemembers exposed to the practice of incinerating garbage, chemicals, ], etc. in ] using benzene-containing ], and I'm looking at the 1991 photo on the Burn Pit page and going "hmmm". ] (]) 01:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
	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 ].", may need to be reviewed.

			:I came here to also ask that. There's a link at the bottom, and the ] article mentions similar symptoms. Is there a reason it's not mentioned in the body of this article? ] (]) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
	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.

			== New study apparently confirming that sarin exposure was responsible + genetic factor in the form of GWS sufferers having a less effective version of the PON1 gene ==
	From the medically unexplained symptoms article:

			(BBC News, 11 May 2022)
	"MUPS may be synonymous with ] PMID 10489969 or ], 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 ] and functional somatic symptoms.PMID 16025867" ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
			Now, the Beeb is a (mostly) reliable source, but should we or shouldn't we wait for a few more sources to provide coverage before adding this? - ] (]) 08:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
			:I'm reading through the now and I definitely think that it deserves to be included here in some form.] (]) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
			::. Appears to violate ] because it is a single study rather than a ] covering a biomedical topic. Also the text we added to the article is quite technical. I'm leaning toward removing it, but figured I'd come to the talk page first. Single studies can be quite untrustworthy, ] where I talk about this a bit. As a compromise, we could condense the added text down to one sentence, for example, "A 2022 study found a possible link between GWS and exposure to low levels of sarin, which was released into the air by coalition bombing of Iraqi chemical weapons facilities." The lower weight and addition of the word "possibly" would make our text more reflective of the potential inaccuracy of the study. –] <small>(])</small> 04:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::If I'm not mistaken, you would have to gut virtually the entire page and start from scratch (]) in order to satisfy the ] criterion for inclusion.] (]) 04:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			:I've added a few reviews that include the 2022 PON1 paper. Attention should be paid as to whether more recent reviews include the current knowledge around sarin as causal of GWS. Because the topic is a controversial subject, sources may be biased and omit the 2022 paper because they want to argue for other causes, despite the 2022 paper having many secondary sources report on it, and seemingly is the only research paper on the topic with over 1000 participants. ] (]) 22:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

			=== Airborne Virus? ===
	: 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. ] (]) 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

			Looking for people near US Military facilities who have never had contact other than short term contact with soldier families that display symptoms of GWS, confirming a plot of it NOT being a sarin gas but a virus that's airborne. I'm a civilian that went in and out of Military communities at Ledward Barracks and Kaiserslautern Barracks and I notice skin problems and neurological damage much similar what is described on 1st/direct contact of soldiers. Ramstein Hospital is not far from Kaiserslautern and ever since visiting the sites of where Shaquille O'Neal played Basketball I've been experiencing symptoms back in Canada. Symptoms are/were difficulty concentrating, confusion, seeing floaters in the eyes. It as manageable until relocation to Ledward Barracks where no physical contact was made but the skin discolourations started happening. Please reply privately at gulfwardeath (at) callpeter (dot) tel, I've witnessed many other people having these skin discolourations as well as well as ugly looking scabs near Ledward. No way home. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	= GA Review =
	{{Talk:Gulf War syndrome/GA1}}

Latest revision as of 11:41, 14 September 2024

Gulf War syndrome was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 2, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Genetics Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.

Military history: Logistics / Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military logistics and medicine task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Elizabeth Dickinson (March 3, 2009). "What was happening in the world the last time the market was this low". Foreign Policy.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Gulf War syndrome.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Contradiction on PTSD incidence between paragraph 2 & 4

Paragraph 2 says: From 1995 to 2005, the health of combat veterans worsened in comparison with nondeployed veterans, with the onset of more new chronic diseases, . . . posttraumatic stress disorder (emphasis added)

Paragraph 4 says: Studies have consistently indicated that . . . Gulf War veterans have lower rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than veterans of other wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8200:D250:7176:89E6:7AC3:59EA (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

IOM sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WLU (talk • contribs)

Do Iraqi soldiers suffer from Gulf War Syndrome?

As above. I'm quite surprised that nobody appears to have addressed this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.111.169 (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible typo

It seems there is a typo in the name used by the Veteran's affairs office. The phrase "medically unexplained illnesses" appears twice in a row.

Current: "Gulf War veterans' medically unexplained illnesses, medically unexplained illnesses, chronic multi-symptom illness (CMI)"

Suggested: "Gulf War veterans' medically unexplained illnesses, chronic multi-symptom illness (CMI)"

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

68.185.39.54 (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Gulf War Syndrome related to Burn Pits?

I was led here after watching a medical video regarding the phenomenon of increased incidence of cancer in US servicemembers exposed to the practice of incinerating garbage, chemicals, UXO, etc. in Burn Pits using benzene-containing JP-8, and I'm looking at the 1991 photo on the Burn Pit page and going "hmmm". Dionaeahouse (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I came here to also ask that. There's a link at the bottom, and the burn pit article mentions similar symptoms. Is there a reason it's not mentioned in the body of this article? Cerulean Depths (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

New study apparently confirming that sarin exposure was responsible + genetic factor in the form of GWS sufferers having a less effective version of the PON1 gene

Sarin gas blamed for Gulf War syndrome (BBC News, 11 May 2022) Now, the Beeb is a (mostly) reliable source, but should we or shouldn't we wait for a few more sources to provide coverage before adding this? - Dvaderv2 (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm reading through the study now and I definitely think that it deserves to be included here in some form.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Diff. Appears to violate WP:MEDRS because it is a single study rather than a review article covering a biomedical topic. Also the text we added to the article is quite technical. I'm leaning toward removing it, but figured I'd come to the talk page first. Single studies can be quite untrustworthy, here's an essay where I talk about this a bit. As a compromise, we could condense the added text down to one sentence, for example, "A 2022 study found a possible link between GWS and exposure to low levels of sarin, which was released into the air by coalition bombing of Iraqi chemical weapons facilities." The lower weight and addition of the word "possibly" would make our text more reflective of the potential inaccuracy of the study. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you would have to gut virtually the entire page and start from scratch (WP:TNT) in order to satisfy the review article criterion for inclusion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added a few reviews that include the 2022 PON1 paper. Attention should be paid as to whether more recent reviews include the current knowledge around sarin as causal of GWS. Because the topic is a controversial subject, sources may be biased and omit the 2022 paper because they want to argue for other causes, despite the 2022 paper having many secondary sources report on it, and seemingly is the only research paper on the topic with over 1000 participants. Dysotic (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Airborne Virus?

Looking for people near US Military facilities who have never had contact other than short term contact with soldier families that display symptoms of GWS, confirming a plot of it NOT being a sarin gas but a virus that's airborne. I'm a civilian that went in and out of Military communities at Ledward Barracks and Kaiserslautern Barracks and I notice skin problems and neurological damage much similar what is described on 1st/direct contact of soldiers. Ramstein Hospital is not far from Kaiserslautern and ever since visiting the sites of where Shaquille O'Neal played Basketball I've been experiencing symptoms back in Canada. Symptoms are/were difficulty concentrating, confusion, seeing floaters in the eyes. It as manageable until relocation to Ledward Barracks where no physical contact was made but the skin discolourations started happening. Please reply privately at gulfwardeath (at) callpeter (dot) tel, I've witnessed many other people having these skin discolourations as well as well as ugly looking scabs near Ledward. No way home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D2:5707:3C01:C7E2:9351:AD5A:41C4 (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: