US and UK scientists disagree about causes of Gulf war syndrome
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
British and American government scientists have produced reports on the causes of so called Gulf war syndrome that are almost diametrically opposed in their conclusions.
The US government抯 principal scientific committee on Gulf war syndrome looks set to announce that it acknowledges a potential link between veterans?neurological symptoms and their exposure to low doses of nerve gas, pesticides, and the drugs that soldiers took to counter nerve agents.
A report by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans?Illnesses, set up by the Department of Veterans?Affairs, finds that that many veterans?symptoms have a neurological cause and that there is a "probable link" to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
The report lists three possible sources of neurological toxins: a major leak of sarin nerve gas from an Iraqi ammunition dump blown up by US forces in 1991; organophosphate pesticides used to protect soldiers from desert insects; and the pyridostigmine bromide tablets taken by British and American soldiers to protect them from nerve gas.
The report was leaked to the New York Times last week, ahead of its public presentation. Professor Beatrice Golomb, a member of the scientific committee, said the report will be published in the coming weeks.
The committee抯 findings represent a radical departure from previous government sponsored investigations. Professor Golomb told the BMJ that recent animal studies in Israel and the United States had led to a new understanding of the long term effects of pyridostigmine bromide and other acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
But this week, scientists working with the British Ministry of Defence said animal studies at the government抯 Porton Down laboratories had shown no evidence of harmful interactions between pyridostigmine bromide and a cocktail of vaccines given to troops in 1991.
Professor David Ray of Nottingham University said the tests, conducted by the Ministry of Defence抯 defence, science and technology laboratory, followed marmosets for 18 months. He said that nothing in the study, which is yet to be published, suggested that pyridostigmine bromide was an inappropriate preventive treatment for nerve gas.
Professor Malcolm Hooper, president of the UK National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said the conclusions of the scientists at the US Department of Veterans?Affairs vindicated his theory of a "triple whammy" from nerve gas, pesticides, and pyridostigmine bromide. He said that the Porton Down study failed to replicate accurately the doses given to soldiers.
But Professor Simon Wessely, director of the Gulf War Illnesses Research Unit at Guy抯, King抯, and St Thomas?School of Medicine, said: "If the US report is as the leaks suggest, it runs counter to the conclusions of all previous scientific committees that have studied the question. One wonders if they are overemphasising some studies at the expense of the weight of the evidence. Their findings also contradict a major study published by VA scientists in Neurology just three weeks ago" (Neurology 2004;63:1070-7).
Britain抯 Ministry of Defence, which argues that there is insufficient evidence to characterise Gulf veterans?ill health as a "unique illness or syndrome," refused to comment on the leaked report.(London Owen Dyer)
The US government抯 principal scientific committee on Gulf war syndrome looks set to announce that it acknowledges a potential link between veterans?neurological symptoms and their exposure to low doses of nerve gas, pesticides, and the drugs that soldiers took to counter nerve agents.
A report by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans?Illnesses, set up by the Department of Veterans?Affairs, finds that that many veterans?symptoms have a neurological cause and that there is a "probable link" to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
The report lists three possible sources of neurological toxins: a major leak of sarin nerve gas from an Iraqi ammunition dump blown up by US forces in 1991; organophosphate pesticides used to protect soldiers from desert insects; and the pyridostigmine bromide tablets taken by British and American soldiers to protect them from nerve gas.
The report was leaked to the New York Times last week, ahead of its public presentation. Professor Beatrice Golomb, a member of the scientific committee, said the report will be published in the coming weeks.
The committee抯 findings represent a radical departure from previous government sponsored investigations. Professor Golomb told the BMJ that recent animal studies in Israel and the United States had led to a new understanding of the long term effects of pyridostigmine bromide and other acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
But this week, scientists working with the British Ministry of Defence said animal studies at the government抯 Porton Down laboratories had shown no evidence of harmful interactions between pyridostigmine bromide and a cocktail of vaccines given to troops in 1991.
Professor David Ray of Nottingham University said the tests, conducted by the Ministry of Defence抯 defence, science and technology laboratory, followed marmosets for 18 months. He said that nothing in the study, which is yet to be published, suggested that pyridostigmine bromide was an inappropriate preventive treatment for nerve gas.
Professor Malcolm Hooper, president of the UK National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said the conclusions of the scientists at the US Department of Veterans?Affairs vindicated his theory of a "triple whammy" from nerve gas, pesticides, and pyridostigmine bromide. He said that the Porton Down study failed to replicate accurately the doses given to soldiers.
But Professor Simon Wessely, director of the Gulf War Illnesses Research Unit at Guy抯, King抯, and St Thomas?School of Medicine, said: "If the US report is as the leaks suggest, it runs counter to the conclusions of all previous scientific committees that have studied the question. One wonders if they are overemphasising some studies at the expense of the weight of the evidence. Their findings also contradict a major study published by VA scientists in Neurology just three weeks ago" (Neurology 2004;63:1070-7).
Britain抯 Ministry of Defence, which argues that there is insufficient evidence to characterise Gulf veterans?ill health as a "unique illness or syndrome," refused to comment on the leaked report.(London Owen Dyer)