Edgewood and Sarin studies
- Dear MichaelYour points are all valid on the MUFA IOM handlingof its data. Only problem is no ones addressing anyof this at this moment, its not being mentioned atVA - WRIISC - DOD - etc.All I can say is that I will make this part of my futurequestions to committees to include the Gulf WarIOM health review now going on. VA and DOD next.The Edgewood experiments are another sorry chapter inthe DOD human test trials. So you have my sincere apologizesthat as a American Citizen I did not sanction this. This wasthe brain child of sick people in power who felt human lifewas expendable. Which still goes on today.However, I will ask DHSD Mike Kilpatrick on thisissue of Edgewood, and see if I can make it a morepressing part of the SHAD era data they glossed over.
Project: VA-63AI know this isnt quite the answer you had in mind,but Ive seen weird things go through the hands ofDHSD, and then they sit on it for years.This is one of them. I will follow this more advidly.Again, thank you for serving your country - andsurviving all that to speak out about it.SincerelyKirt P. LoveDirector, DSBRNote: Could you break up your copy into paragraphs in thefuture, as a favor to me. Its very hard to read the messagein one giant paragraph, my eyes arent that good anymore.
This is the link to the original report in pdf at the IOM.The doctor did this phone survey on a Army GrantDAMD17-99-1-9485, and released in Military Medicine.This report is similar to the IOM MUFA report:Long-term Follow-up of Army PersonnelPotentially Exposed to Chemical Warfare AgentsThe Medical Follow-Up Agency worked under specialsecurity protocols, and cant release all its data sources.Long-Term Health Effects of Exposure to Sarin and
During the period from 1955-1975, the U.S. Army conducted a series of experiments at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland in which military volunteers were exposed to various kinds of substances, including chemical warfare agents such as sarin and other anticholinesterases. This is the second survey done to examine the adverse long-term effects of known exposure in the volunteers from the Edgewood experiments. In this current study, the Medical Follow-up Agency of the Institute of Medicine conducted a telephone survey of 4,022 military volunteers to compare the current health of those exposed to anticholinesterase agents with the health of men in two other control groups: those who had been exposed to other substances and those who had been exposed to no active agents. The telephone survey asked about general health, but was mostly focused on neurological and psychological health problems. This is because there is some evidence that exposure to pesticides-which chemically resemble anticholinesterase agents and thus might be expected to produce similar health effects from exposure-can cause neurological and psychological health problems.
In general, the study found few differences in health among the three groups of men. Experimental exposure to anticholinesterase agents was associated with significantly greater sleep problems and significantly fewer attention problems, depending on the control group with which the comparison was made. Statistically significant differences were not found in memory problems, peripheral neuropathy, vestibular dysfunction (i.e., dizziness), depression, generalized anxiety, somatization, or prevalence of birth defects.
The survey also asked about exposures to hazardous chemicals outside of the Edgewood experiments. Men who reported such exposure also reported significantly higher levels of problems in memory, attention, sleep disturbance, peripheral neuropathy, somatization, depression, generalized anxiety, vestibular dysfunction, and birth defects. These higher levels were independent of experimental exposure. However, they may be subject to reporting bias; i.e. because the non-experimental exposures were self-reported, there may be a tendency for those who recall hazardous chemical exposure to be more likely also to recall health problems. In this study, the health effects of experimental exposure were less frequently seen than the effects of non-experimental exposure.
This study was funded by Army grant DAMD17-99-1-9485 and appears in Military Medicine: International Journal of AMSUS, Volume 168(3): 239, March 2003.----- Original Message -----From: TESTVET@...To: DSBR@...Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:11 PMSubject: Kirt LoveSir,I see you are very vocal on the Gulf War issues,are you familiar with the March 2003 report onAnti-chloresternase agents completed by theMUFA unit of the IOM prepared by Dr William Page?It was prepared to rebut the effects of chemicalweapons at Kamisayah in 1991 by the only knowngroup of veterans exposed to chemical weaponsunder experiments by the US Army from 19555 thru1975.The human experimentation at Edgewood Arsenal doneprimarily by Dr Van Sim, Dr Frederick Siddell, Mr Gottliebof the CIA and 8 Nazi doctors snuck into the US inOperation Paperclip after WW2.The study glossed over these facts, 2/3 of the men usedin these experimnets are dead or disabled. They usedrecords from Social Security, VA and the IRS these recordscan find any american. They were only able to find 4022which leaves someone to assume 2698 men are dead, ofthe 4022 that were found 54% reported very poor or totallydisabling health, approximayely 2100 men.Previous studies have shown that chemical weapons affectgastrointestinal system, nuerological system, pulmonarysystem and the cardiac system, yet MMr Pages study onlyfound a sleep disorder and a high rate of brain tumors due toSarin.Previous Edgewood studies found many more problems thatthat in the veterans at risk study of 1993 prepared by the IOM,again the MUFA unit, why was that data not used in the March2003 study?Why did the 2003 study not address pulmonary, gastorintestinaland nureolgival systems nor cardiac. There were multiplechemical weapons at Kamisayah, mustard agents Sarin andmany others are suspected of being there.Why is the fact that 2/3 of the test vets from 1955 - 1975 beingadversely affected by the controlled tests being ignored?Is the possibility of 2/3 of the possible 107,000 men and womenexposed at Kamisayah becoming 100% disabled to expensivefor the VA and DoD to deal with?Studies and tests are cheap to actually compensating these people.The VA published a manual in October 2003 titled Health Effectsof Chemical, Biological and Radiological Weapons, based onexperiments done on american enlisted men from WW2 thru 1975.The known relationships are listed there and the possible onesare listed there. So where is the problem in service connectingthe Kamisayah vets to these known problems and then studyingthe possible problems?I am one of the original 6720 cold war test veterans, I was at Edgewoodin June - Sep 1974. A lot of the answers to GWS are in these studiesand VA manuals.Michael Baileyex SSG InfantryOct 73 to Sep 82.GW1