In mid November, a committee set up by the US Congress released a landmark report on Gulf War Illness (GWI), an event widely reported by the media. It was considered a landmark study, as it stated categorically that the ill effects suffered by veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War were real, and amounted to a distinct medical condition.

The report identified two probable causes of this illness - pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills which were given to troops to protect them from nerve agents, and pesticides which were liberally used to protect troops from insects.

However, amidst all the fuss, some incredibly damning information on the US government's response to the use of uranium weapons was completely ignored by the media. The section on DU related a litany of irrelevant research, obstructive and incompetent behaviour by the US government, and confirmation that a touchstone study on veterans affected by DU covered up an incidence of cancer in the group.

McDiarmid study 
Melissa McDiarmid’s Baltimore study, which looks at the health of friendly fire victims, many of whom have DU fragments in their bodies, drew particular criticism. This study is frequently referred to by the UK and US governments when they seek to defend DU, and has been repeatedly attacked by campaigners – all of whom are vindicated by the report.

While the DoD has indicated that at least 900 veterans were involved in incidents that could cause higher-level DU exposure, only 70 were studied in total – and only 30 in any single follow up. The crude categories used for medical problems and the lack of a control group in all but one of the studies, mean that they are of little use for drawing meaningful conclusions. It is also suggested that the studies failed to follow up significant findings, including detectable levels of uranium in the sperm of several veterans in 1997.

Cancer cover-up 
Most damming of all is the attempt to cover up the incidence of tumours in McDiarmid’s study group. The fact that one veteran developed Hodgkin’s lymphoma is mentioned in passing in one write-up in 1999, but omitted from subsequent reports, and the occurrence of a non-malignant bone tumour in another is not mentioned at all. ... (from ICBUW) ... for the entire report click here ...