RE: 2 Control Group proof

First off, obviously, I am not a trained medical doctor or researcher. As such, I really have no standing to judge the results of studies that trained professionals have carried out. If there is a trained expert, I’d like to hear your opinion.

After reviewing the “Lloyd Report”, the first thing I am prompted to say is that it identifies itself as a report as opposed to a study. It is a summary of other some other studies about the Gulf War Illness. That may not in itself be a bad thing, but it is not a scientific study. And it has its fair share of critics.

Furthermore, the BBC Report about the report says that the illness was caused by a number of factors of which vaccines could be one.

The report also states that the incidence of Gulf War Illness is twice as likely in those who served in the Gulf than those who did not. So which is it? Is the report right when it says that it was service in the Gulf or is the report right when it says service in the Gulf did not matter?

Is there any sort of recognized (DSM-esque) classification of Gulf War Syndrome? That is the controversy that I see repeated over and over again. I see people saying that there is no definite list of symptoms for the Illness and that it is very similar to PTSD (from Vietnam) or “shell shock” from WWII. I really don’t have any experience with anyone suffering from the Syndrome, so I am surprised at the lack of medical support/consensus.

I realize that we can’t trust the government (sarcasm) but the official military report says that there wasn’t any squalene in the vaccines. Why the insistence on the fact that there was squalene?

The report details that testing fingerprint oil indicates off the charts squalene levels and that any squalene found in the anthrax vaccine was likely due to a small amount of contamination from the test itself. Incidentally, it also states that they found just as much squalene in tetanus and diptheria vaccines… yet there is no uproar about those.