Rumors of Gulf War Syndrome
Informal communication among British veterans of the first Iraq war may have shaped the vets' characterization of Gulf War Syndrome.
font_down font_up Text Size

After the bullets stopped flying, the rumors took off among British veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. Early accounts of physical and emotional reactions to wartime experiences spread from one person to another through networks of veterans. Within a few years, these former soldiers had decided among themselves that many of them suffered from the controversial illness known as Gulf War Syndrome, a new study concludes.

Simon Wessely of King’s College London and his colleagues analyzed extensive written accounts provided in 1996, five years after the Gulf War, by 1,100 British Gulf War vets participating in a larger survey of veterans’ health. Vets described their wartime experiences and related what had happened in the conflict to their later health and illness.

The research team doesn’t regard rumor as necessarily untrue or misleading. Rumor proved to be critical among the British Gulf War vets because it counteracted a lack of communication from military and government authorities regarding possible wartime health risks, Wessely says.

Scared and confused vets turned to their own social grapevine for answers, Wessely’s group reports in an upcoming Social Science & Medicine. Out of their shared stories and explanations grew a collective conviction that Gulf War Syndrome existed as a unitary illness with elusive causes.

“The nature of Gulf War Syndrome in the years after the conflict was keenly shaped by these early rumors, which entangled specific ideas about the illness with feelings of betrayal, distrust and ambiguity,” Wessely says.

Symptoms attributed to Gulf War Syndrome include joint and muscle pain, bouts of depression or violent behavior and cancers of various types. Some researchers regard the condition as a psychological disorder related to the stress of combat. Others, as well as many vets, contend that it’s a physical disorder caused by exposure to toxic substances shortly before or during the war.

By 2001, an estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of those who served in the Gulf War believed that they suffered from Gulf War Syndrome.

Current medical consensus holds that Gulf War veterans indeed display unusually high rates of various health problems, but that these conditions don’t constitute a discrete illness or syndrome, Wessely says.

Research on this issue remains contentious. In a commentary slated to be published with the new study, Thomas Shriver of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater and Sherry Cable of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville say that Wessely’s team appears to regard veterans’ symptoms as purely psychological and perhaps partly invented out of rumor. “The authors come perilously close to blaming the victims,” the two sociologists contend.

U.S. Gulf War vets used rumors early after their return to define collective grievances and develop a plan to press authorities for medical treatment and compensation, Shriver and Cable say.

But, Wessely responds, “Far from blaming vets, we are shifting the spotlight to the role of governments in allowing an information vacuum to develop regarding potential health risks, which allowed rumors to spread and gain currency after the war.”

Military authorities in the United States and England have learned a hard lesson from that experience, he says.

Consider that the anthrax vaccine was administered to U.S. and British soldiers entering the Gulf War, but that the vaccine was given under a code name. Rumors about the vaccine spread quickly, including one that soldiers were being injected with an experimental AIDS vaccine. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S and British soldiers were told upfront that they were receiving the anthrax vaccine.

The new study confirms that rumors about health risks, especially from vaccinations and pills, spread rapidly among troops just before, during and after the war.

About 90 percent of the survey participants listed one or more personal problems, including anger, depression, forgetfulness, lumps, rashes, seizures, post-traumatic stress disorder, brain lesions, incontinence and self-enforced isolation.

More than one-third of vets worried about unknown pollutants that had somehow entered their bodies. Concern focused on exposure to depleted uranium used during the war by U.S. and British forces, tablets and vaccinations provided to protect against Iraqi biological and chemical warfare and smoke from oil fires set by Iraqi forces as they retreated from Kuwait.

About two-thirds of vets said that they did not, at the time of the survey, suffer from any full-blown illness but still felt susceptible to developing Gulf War Syndrome.

Most participants also cited a lack of confidence in their leaders, from commanders of military units to government officials. Frustration over military secrecy and over not knowing whom to trust was common.

After the war, rumors reaffirmed the social bond among returning vets and helped them to shape a bewildering array of physical and psychological symptoms into the common burden of Gulf War Syndrome, the scientists propose.


Found in: Humans
Comments 4
  • This article ("Rumors Shaped Veterans' View of Gulf War Ills") begins to illustrate the important difference between the political and sociological decisions that must be made with respect to healthcare and those made with respect to the science of medicine. From a political and sociological point of view I believe it is the right thing to do to give veterans the benefit of the doubt and to accept the idea that the symptoms and illnesses that they label as Gulf War syndrome are worthy of evaluation and treatment. At minimum on that basis I believe it is correct to provide medical care with respect to those complaints. In fact, I would go further and I have recommended that veterans deserve full medical coverage from their government. Anyone who serves in the armed services has the potential to be put in harms way when the government determines that it is in the country's best interest. Some pay a very high price for their service. I construe this willingness to be put in harms way as part of a social contract with the government who then has the obligation to care for those who have served.

    In contrast, it is important that labels and diagnoses in medicine be based on science and strict criteria. Proper treatment and proper understanding depend upon the ethical application of science.

    I believe we should be able to reassure veterans that their symptoms, illnesses, and mental health needs will be appropriately addressed and treated. In that way they will not need to feel threatened if the scientific evidence does not allow us to uniformly agree that "Gulf War syndrome" is the appropriate diagnosis to explain those symptoms, and they need not worry that the lack of that label would then deprive them of compassionate and adequate treatment. This would allow us to continue to treat veterans as patients and continue to study the scientific issues.

    A true diagnosis cannot be achieved by consensus without science but treatment should not be withheld or compromised because of the political controversies surrounding scientific uncertainty.
    Steven Zeitzew Bone Doc
    Nov. 7, 2008 at 12:42pm
  • On 22nd June 1999 Dr Robert Haley gave a presentation at The Presidential Oversight Committee on Gulf War Veterans' illnesses which was concerned with multi-disciplinary pathophysiologic studies of neurotoxic gulf war related syndromes leading to diagnosis and treatment.

    During his presentation he said of Simon Wesseley's
    research into Gulf War Syndrome:

    ' He omitted four of the five most important symptoms. The five highest loading symptoms on factor two and only four of them were not in his model.
    Five of his eight symptoms that were used to detect our Syndrome 2 were not in my model. In other words, his Syndrome 2 had five levels that we didn't even measure. It had nothing to do with ours. So his claim -- let's see. There is more to it.
    Three symptoms were listed ambiguously. He used headaches, he had headaches. We had all those secondary things to look to migraine headaches. Well, those are two different symptoms. In that instance, he has
    failed to disentangle crucial ambiguities and terminology like fatigue meaning sleepiness versus weakness. He just looked at fatigue. Three symptoms calculated. He actually loaded -- three of our syndromes were loaded on the wrong factor.
    So the point is, this is a very sloppy job. I don't know how it got in Lancet, but it did. It should be retracted. We have written a letter to the editor and it is pending. So there is some hot contention here.'

    This 'sloppy' approach appears to be prevalent in much of the work done regarding conditions with difficult to diagnose diseases such as Gulf War Syndrome, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome etc.

    The implication which comes out of shoddy unscientific research pertaining to these conditions is that the patient suffers from 'abnormal illness beliefs'.

    The hypotheses are invariably aimed at establishing that the patients suffer from behavioural illnesses which can only be remedied by using treatments which originate from the psychiatric profession. The treatment of choice will, of course, be Cognitive Behavioural Therapy which is aimed at changing people’s beliefs.

    The title of this article contains the word 'rumors' and this is very fitting: but the rumours originate from the psychiatric profession, not the people who suffer from the illness.
    jill cooper jill cooper
    Oct. 20, 2008 at 11:29am
  • I strongly suspect one chemical exposure for the CFIDS, CFS, FM symptoms that these vets have. It is a common chemical exposure showing up especially in war eras this past century to the present.

    I found out the 2-butoxyethanol (a solvent, a pesticide, a teratogen, a neurotoxin) was on the list (Book 2) of solvents and pesticides the gulf war troops were exposed to

    http://www.valdezlink.com/same.htm

    The government is clueless. Even the Presidents' doctors do not recognize the pattern of this chemical's harm.

    There is a group that should 'look like these' The bioremediation workers of the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup and the USA Coast Guard who monitored the experiment.

    I strongly suspect the Vietnam Vets were harmed by this other chemical 'in the mix'

    http://www.valdezlink.com/re/achemicaltosuspect.htm

    There are many incorrect views in medical science that prevent discovery ... but there is proof: the anemia that doctors are looking for in Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome. I suspect this anemia is a primary cause of death for these, and for others with similar amounts of exposure to Ethylene Glycol MonoBUTYL Ether: AUTOIMMUNE HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA.

    http://www.valdezlink.com/re/thecfidsview.htm
    Margaret H Margaret Diann
    Oct. 19, 2008 at 12:07pm
  • The same doctor has also allegedly denigrated Myalgic Encephalitis, Fibromyalgia, Lyme disease, organo-phosphate poisoning and the Camelford water poisoning outbreak as being 'all in the mind', allegedly adding greatly to the suffering of those affected.

    The 2006 Gibson report on M.E. advised that he and his colleagues be investigated for their possible conflict of interest in also working for private insurance companies and the Department of Work and Pensions, saving them huge sums of money. This has never been done.
    Hilary Smiffy Hilary Smiffy
    Oct. 19, 2008 at 9:50am
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Suggested Reading:
seperator
  • Golomb, B. 2008. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and Gulf War illnesses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(March 18):4295-4300. [Go to].
Citations & References:
seperator
  • Cohn, S., et al. In press. Early accounts of gulf war illness and the construction of narratives in UK service personnel. Social Science & Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.004
  • Shriver, T., and S. Cable. In press. The institutional context of Gulf War illness claims: A commentary on Cohn, Dyson and Wessely. Social Science & Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.004
  • Wessely, S., and S. Cohn. In press. Contextualizing Gulf War illness experience: A response to Shriver and Cable. Social Science & Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.009
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator