Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    It's all in their heads says VA study...

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- There is no such thing as Gulf War syndrome, even though U.S. and foreign veterans of the war report more symptoms of illness than do soldiers who didn't serve there, a federally funded study concludes.

    U.S. and foreign veterans of the Gulf War do suffer from an array of very real problems, according to the Veterans Administration-sponsored report released Tuesday.

    Yet there is no one complex of symptoms to suggest those veterans -- nearly 30 percent of all those who served -- suffered or still suffer from a single identifiable syndrome.

    "There's no unique pattern of symptoms. Every pattern identified in Gulf War veterans also seems to exist in other veterans, though it is important to note the symptom rate is higher, and it is a serious issue," said Dr. Lynn Goldman, of Johns Hopkins University, who headed the Ins ute of Medicine committee that prepared the report.
    ***
    Veterans can now claim those benefits only by making an undiagnosed illness claim, said Steve Robinson, a Gulf War Army veteran and government relations director for Veterans for America
    CNN

    The V.A. has decided that since they don't believe in Gulf War Syndrome...it doesn't exist.

    Move along folks...nothing to see here

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    We'll have an A vs B comparison.

    Will Iraqi or Afghan war veterans suffer from their own war syndomes?
    Last edited by boutons_; 09-13-2006 at 08:39 AM.

  3. #3
    "Have to check the film" PixelPusher's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    3,396
    My B.S. detector just about exploded when I heard a breif mention this on the radio this morning. I've talked to people who were in the army during the gulf war, who told me about pills they were ordered to take without question; chemical artillery attacks that officially never happened, etc. Of course this could all be as simple as not wanting to pay to care for vets. There's a mountain of behind what's going on here; I hope someone is able to dig out the truth behind this.

  4. #4
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    it's not like bush or cheney ever stepped foot on a battlefield they don't care
    It's not their kids dying for their mistakes...

  5. #5
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Anyways, this is BS.

    The interesting thing about a lot of what some of the vets are suffering from:

    Deep brain damage from the nerve agents that troops were forced to take.

    Yes, our troops were forced to take nerve agents.

    The nerve agents were administered in pill form on the scientifically unsubstantiated belief that if you expose yourself gradually to any chemical, that chemical won't kill you as fast.

    Unfortunately for a large number of troops, that nerve agent is very very very very harmful to nerve tissue.

    Where is the largest concentration of nerve tissue in the human body?

    The brain.

    What organ is the most sensitive to minute chemical changes?

    The brain.

    What organ would tend to be most damaged by a chemical that kills nerve tissue?

    The brain.

    Do a modi of reading on this. Hopefully you will end up as pissed about this as I am.

  6. #6
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    The government of this country is using specious logic and questionable facts to deny a small minority a benefit? A branch of our government isn't a panacea of benevolence and high-minded righteousness?

    Let's all let them raise our taxes and transfer more power and control to them!

  7. #7
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "a small minority a benefit"

    if these people were in top tax brackets, you know damn well the Repugs would be all over their cases to offer them relief. We're talking about a "benfit" of perhaps many $100Ms, or $Bs of medical care and disability of these victims lifetimes. Compare with the $$$ dubya is burning in Iraq, and the $300B estate taxes cut for the top handful of super-rich estates.

    btw, the WTC first responders are also being under-treated for their health complaints developed since the attack

  8. #8
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    "a small minority a benefit"

    if these people were in top tax brackets, you know damn well the Repugs would be all over their cases to offer them relief. We're talking about a "benfit" of perhaps many $100Ms, or $Bs of medical care and disability of these victims lifetimes. Compare with the $$$ dubya is burning in Iraq, and the $300B estate taxes cut for the top handful of super-rich estates.

    btw, the WTC first responders are also being under-treated for their health complaints developed since the attack
    The estate tax cut kept me from having to sell my family's business (one I helped quadruple in size for 10 years prior to inheriting it), and put 30 people out of work when my dad died 3 years ago. The business was valued at $3 mil at the time, and I would have had to come up with ~$1.5 to pay Uncle Sam under the old code. I could have taken out a loan, but since it is a business that processes medical claims, and there is a constant drum-beat to move to universal healthcare....there is not a great guarantee that this business can continue to provide the revenue necessary to manage THAT level of debt (assuming I could get the loan in the first place). Does this qualify as "super rich" to you, Boutons? Sure, I live a comfortable life, but I don't make what most Doctors or Lawyers earn - and their "estates" often aren't valued anywhere near what business owners are, because they don't have that high-value (determined by the IRS, btw) business asset to pass down.

    The estate tax change was made to protect small business, and that is what it does.

  9. #9
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The estate tax cut kept me from having to sell my family's business (one I helped quadruple in size for 10 years prior to inheriting it), and put 30 people out of work when my dad died 3 years ago. The business was valued at $3 mil at the time, and I would have had to come up with ~$1.5 to pay Uncle Sam under the old code. I could have taken out a loan, but since it is a business that processes medical claims, and there is a constant drum-beat to move to universal healthcare....there is not a great guarantee that this business can continue to provide the revenue necessary to manage THAT level of debt (assuming I could get the loan in the first place). Does this qualify as "super rich" to you, Boutons? Sure, I live a comfortable life, but I don't make what most Doctors or Lawyers earn - and their "estates" often aren't valued anywhere near what business owners are, because they don't have that high-value (determined by the IRS, btw) business asset to pass down.

    The estate tax change was made to protect small business, and that is what it does.
    How "small" is your business?

  10. #10
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    How "small" is your business?
    Currently 25 Employees, ~$2 m. annual revenue.

  11. #11
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Currently 25 Employees, ~$2 m. annual revenue.
    I can sort of see that getting an exemption for such a business would be a good thing. But you still have ac ulated millions of dollars of assets.

    But getting rid of the estate tax in its entirety would be a big mistake.

    Where do we draw the line? Millions? Tens of millions? billions? Trillions?

    How much money could/should any one family control?

    Should we end up like the Kingdon of Saud?

    (shudders)

  12. #12
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I can sort of see that getting an exemption for such a business would be a good thing. But you still have ac ulated millions of dollars of assets.

    But getting rid of the estate tax in its entirety would be a big mistake.

    Where do we draw the line? Millions? Tens of millions? billions? Trillions?

    How much money could/should any one family control?

    Should we end up like the Kingdon of Saud?

    (shudders)
    The assets you speak of are not liquid, and cannot be made so w/o selling a business - along with my livlihood, and that of my employees. The actual physical property of the business doesn't amount to hardly anything. The value is its book of business/cash flow.


    Well, the "super" rich make damn sure their money is protected and shielded from estate taxes through trusts, corps, etc...the super wealthy have not lost their massive control over the economy because of the estate tax; they have lost it because of the laziness of subsequent generations, who cannot duplicate what the founders of the dynasty's did, much less hold onto the assets in an ever-changing free-market economy. The Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, etc..are still certainly wealthy families, and often idle rich, but don't own anything like enough capital to influence our economy like the Saudi Royal Family. The Kennedy's fortune is shrinking, the Fords, etc..,etc..In any event, I actually trust those families to do more with their money to benefit humanity than the government!! Warren Buffet, anyone?

    Bottom line is estates as they are built, are TAXED! Many people build those estates specifically to provide a comfortable life, or education, employment, etc. for their heirs.

    IMO, A person ought to be able to spend his/her money, justly earned, in any legitimate way they see fit. That includes spending iit on great-great-grandchildren not yet born.

  13. #13
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,356
    The government of this country is using specious logic and questionable facts to deny a small minority a benefit? A branch of our government isn't a panacea of benevolence and high-minded righteousness?

    Let's all let them raise our taxes and transfer more power and control to them!
    The problem I have with those currently in power is that they act incompetently and corruptly, and then reference their own incompetence and corruption as justification for their ideology.

    Except that the ideology is supposed to be "spend less to do less."

    The actual execution has been "spend more to do less."

    Or more precisely, "borrow more to do less."

    Another thing they say is that we should "support our troops." But, when it comes time actually to give tangible support to our troops, instead they never miss an opportunity to f*** them over.

    I remember a time when the conservative movement was not overrun with craven criminals.

    I agree that socialized health care is less efficient than a privatized system would be, as long as the privatized system were constructed so that the sick actually could get insurance. Unfortunately, we don't have a privatized system. What we have is a bas ized combination of the least efficient aspects of socialism and privatization. It's the worst of both worlds.

  14. #14
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I agree that socialized health care is less efficient than a privatized system would be, as long as the privatized system were constructed so that the sick actually could get insurance. Unfortunately, we don't have a privatized system. What we have is a bas ized combination of the least efficient aspects of socialism and privatization. It's the worst of both worlds.
    I agree with your statement about inefficiencies. Regarding "the sick getting insurance". If you are already sick, it's not insurance anymore; it's somebody agreeing to pay your medical bills for you. You must buy the insurance BEFORE you get sick - for every risk there is a premium, unfortunately, if you are already incurring bills, you are no longer a risk, you are a claim.

    You can't buy flood insurance while the river is rising, you can't buy car insurance to cover a wreck that has already occurred, and you can't buy life-insurance after you've contracted AIDS.

    Unfortunately, the insurance carriers have done there fair share in bas izing the model; issuing policies with short coverage periods, then when the insured does contract an illness, the carrier raises the premium beyond all legitimate (ethical) levels, or refuses to renew the policy altogether. Somewhere in the fine print of the policy this is spelled out, but the insured has no idea; it's where the Texas DOI ought to be controlling things, but, since it is funded in large part by the carriers, it doesn't. Group policies have the protection of the Fed. AND are tax deductible, that is why they are prevalent.

  15. #15
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,356
    I agree with your statement about inefficiencies. Regarding "the sick getting insurance". If you are already sick, it's not insurance anymore; it's somebody agreeing to pay your medical bills for you. You must buy the insurance BEFORE you get sick - for every risk there is a premium, unfortunately, if you are already incurring bills, you are no longer a risk, you are a claim.

    You can't buy flood insurance while the river is rising, you can't buy car insurance to cover a wreck that has already occurred, and you can't buy life-insurance after you've contracted AIDS.

    Unfortunately, the insurance carriers have done there fair share in bas izing the model; issuing policies with short coverage periods, then when the insured does contract an illness, the carrier raises the premium beyond all legitimate (ethical) levels, or refuses to renew the policy altogether. Somewhere in the fine print of the policy this is spelled out, but the insured has no idea; it's where the Texas DOI ought to be controlling things, but, since it is funded in large part by the carriers, it doesn't. Group policies have the protection of the Fed. AND are tax deductible, that is why they are prevalent.
    I misspoke; I meant to describe a system that prevents the abuses you lay out --- i.e., accepting premiums from healthy people, then dropping them when they get sick, or laying out policies that screw over the customer.

    There is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. In capitalism, the government is supposed to protect the interests of the market. In the latter, government protects the interests of (specific) businesses. We are told we have the former, but too often we end up with the latter.

  16. #16
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    that is why we should do away with the party system
    You can probably post that at the bottom of each thread & it would be relevent.

  17. #17
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Founding fathers wanted to, but it didn't happen then either.

    I don't think there is any way around it, other than fracturing the current two parties and going to a parlimentary system.

    GW wouldn't last two f***ing seconds in the British Parliment's Prime Minister's Questions...

  18. #18
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Founding fathers wanted to, but it didn't happen then either.

    I don't think there is any way around it, other than fracturing the current two parties and going to a parlimentary system.

    GW wouldn't last two f***ing seconds in the British Parliment's Prime Minister's Questions...

    Clinton, 1st term Reagan, LBJ & Kennedy are the only recent presidents who could handle that, IMO.

    GW would be undressed, Carter bewildered and not quick enough. Ford just outclassed, Nixon too ugly, GB Sr. - would lose his temper and call them Bozo's.

    2nd term Reagan would just stand there looking blank (unless Nancy was behind him prompting)

    Clinton would be sick in that setting.

  19. #19
    Bombs Away! AFE7FATMAN's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Post Count
    1,573
    It's all in their heads says VA study...



    CNN

    The V.A. has decided that since they don't believe in Gulf War Syndrome...it doesn't exist.

    Move along folks...nothing to see here
    Not the 1st time Dan

    A short history lesson
    In Vietnam, when the men in the field saw the effects of Agent Orange on the vegetation and questioned it's affects on them they were told not to worry.

    They were told that the spray was not harmful to humans. Despite the weight of evidence to the contrary the military and the Chemical companies continued to insist that Agent Orange was harmless.

    The Veterans Administration, Chemical Companies and the Department of Defense pointed to a study done with the personnel of Operation Ranch Hand that showed no correlation between Agent Orange and the problems associated with it by the Veterans.

    The critics of this study point out that the average "Ranch Hander" returned to base each night to shower and change clothes while the ground soldier walked through contaminated dust, drank contaminated water and wore contaminated clothes for weeks and months.

    It also failed to note that a lot of the drums that contained Agent orange
    were simply washed and used as BB Q grills at first before the Word got out.

    and now from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

    Agent Orange was the nickname given to a powerful herbicide and defoliant used by the U.S. military in its Herbicidal Warfare program during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange was used from 1961 to 1971...contained dioxins...

    Since the 1980s, several lawsuits have been filed against the companies who produced Agent Orange, among them being Dow Chemical and Monsanto. U.S. veterans obtained $180 million in compensation in 1984,

    The Settlement Fund was distributed to class members in accordance with a distribution plan established by United States District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who presided over the litigation and the settlement.

    Because the plaintiff class was so large (an estimated 10 million people), the Fund was distributed to class members in the United States through two separate programs designed to provide maximum benefits to Vietnam veterans and their families most in need of assistance:


    a Payment Program, which provided cash compensation to totally-disabled veterans and survivors of deceased veterans; and


    a Class Assistance Program, which provided funds for social services organizations and networks for the purpose of establishing and maintaining programs for the benefit of the class as a whole.


    "13 f'n years after it was not longer used, how many died and how many children died because of it."

    Australian, Canadian and New Zealand veterans also obtained compensation in an out-of-court settlement the same year.

    In 1999, 20,000 South Koreans filed a lawsuit in Korea; in January 2006, the Korean Appeal Court ordered Monsanto and Dow to pay $62 million in compensation to about 6,800 people.

    However, no Vietnamese have obtained compensation, and on March 10, 2005 Judge Jack Weinstein of Brooklyn Federal Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange against the chemical companies that produced the defoliants/herbicides

    For the VETs here is the page to apply for all thoses wonderful benefits
    http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/herbicide/


    Now were doing the same to our Gulf War Vets, BTW, not that anyone gives a , but I can tell you what my Fathers Uncle got for being exposed to Mus Gas in WWI. "A Tombstone at the age of 23"

    This happens all the time to VETS I don't have all the things this chemical caused, besides the death of a few friends and relatives and
    my own experience but here are a few.


    Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), for example is four times more likely to kill the children of Veterans exposed to Agent Orange than it is children of parents who were not exposed. This makes medical sense because it has been shown in the laboratory that Dioxin has an affect on the immune system and SIDS seems to be an immune system defect. Information and cases are sparse but they are there. And they are frightening.

    In one case a platoon that operated in an part of Vietnam that had been heavily sprayed has had five of it's twenty members diagnosed as suffering from dioxin poisoning. That's twenty five percent. and only 6 member were contacted How many of those that weren't contacted had similar symptoms?

    Veterans tell story after story of Veterans who suddenly age. Their hair falls out in clumps, what remains turns white. They suffer from strange nerve disorders, irritableness, weight loss, palsies and finally, mercifully, death. In every case these men were exposed to Agent Orange.

    some more:
    Diabetes Mellitus (Type II)
    Agent Orange and Birth Defects
    Spina Bifida. The Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1997 granted benefits for children of Vietnam veterans who were suffering from spina bifida (38 U.S.C. §1805).
    Benefits for Women Vietnam Veterans' Children With Birth Defects
    list is pdf file, check link listed

    Chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne.

    Hodgkin's disease.

    Multiple myeloma.

    Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

    Acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. (For purposes of this section, the term acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy means temporary peripheral neuropathy that appears within weeks or months of exposure to an herbicide agent and resolves within two years of the date of onset.)

    Porphyria cutanea a.

    Prostate cancer.

    Respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea).

    Soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma).

    Sorry so long but one big of mine and the only reason they admitted anything was because they were taken to court.

    So for all the right wing nuts that believe the Government/President when they/He says "TRUST ME" I say FU and fo the Gulf war vet I say welcome to the club and if you can't have kids, join the law suit when it takes place.l
    Last edited by AFE7FATMAN; 09-14-2006 at 01:39 AM.

  20. #20
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    You can probably post that at the bottom of each thread & it would be relevent.
    QFT

  21. #21
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Im disgusted with government in general.

    Every conservative on this board screams about Support our Troops or you love the terrorists.

    Sooooo, since our government doesnt support our troops, does that mean they support terrorists?

  22. #22
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Founding fathers wanted to, but it didn't happen then either.

    I don't think there is any way around it, other than fracturing the current two parties and going to a parlimentary system.

    GW wouldn't last two f***ing seconds in the British Parliment's Prime Minister's Questions...
    Good examples by 101A. Reminds me of that time again when I heard Kennedy wanted to debate Stalin. Basically everyone and their mother said "Uhhh, no sir."

    Something like that...

  23. #23
    Gotta Fly, to Old to drive. BIG IRISH's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    753




    A Picture is worth a 1,000 Words?

  24. #24
    "Have to check the film" PixelPusher's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    3,396
    In another thread on this board (regarding the Air Force testing microwave weaponry on civilians) I facetiously remarked "Whatever happened to the time honored tradition of the military testing out on it's own troops?".

    ...well, it looks like the Brits have adopted our "shut up and take this mystery pill" policy...


    Fears over drug for troops in Iraq


    Press Association
    Saturday September 16, 2006 7:18 AM

    British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being treated with an experimental drug that has not been fully tested.

    The Ministry of Defence is giving soldiers an experimental blood clotting drug called NovoSeven, the Guardian reports.

    It says that because randomised controlled trials have not yet been carried out it is impossible to judge the drug's effectiveness. But the MoD said the drug has only been authorised after "an extensive review of the current evidence".

    Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, chairman of the science and technology select committee, said the MoD's decision was "a dereliction of its duty of care that indicates a moral bankruptcy within the military." And an expert in trauma care has warned "there is potential for harm".

    NovoSeven, which is also known as Recombinant Factor VIIa, was originally licensed in 1999 as a treatment to stem bleeding in haemophiliacs.

    It is undergoing trials for use to stop bleeding in trauma patients with severe wounds and bleeding within the brains of patients with severe head injuries, but its effectiveness and safety as a blood-clotting agent in these cir stances has not been proven.

    Professor Ian Roberts, an expert in trauma care at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "Like all treatments there is potential for harm and it is not licensed for use."

    Prof Roberts wrote to Defence Secretary Des Browne on August 8 to ask whether the MoD had approved the drug for use on British servicemen and women.

    An MoD spokeswoman said: "The MoD attaches a high priority to medical research into trauma care. We are confident that we are offering the best possible care to our servicemen and women based on currently available evidence.

    "The use of Recombinant Factor VIIa in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) has been authorised after an extensive review of the current evidence. It is strictly controlled in the DMS and only authorised when conventional medical treatments have failed."

    © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.

  25. #25
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,426
    My B.S. detector just about exploded when I heard a breif mention this on the radio this morning. I've talked to people who were in the army during the gulf war, who told me about pills they were ordered to take without question; chemical artillery attacks that officially never happened, etc. Of course this could all be as simple as not wanting to pay to care for vets. There's a mountain of behind what's going on here; I hope someone is able to dig out the truth behind this.
    Exposure to Sarin gas when incinerating arms caches, apparently.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •