# [ RadSafe ] Doyle and Ryan Gulf war reproductive health paper

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Sat Feb 3 18:54:34 CST 2007

```Feb. 3, 2007

On Feb. 3, James Salsman (JS) wrote:

"The Doyle and Ryan paper at http://www.bovik.org/du/DoyleRyan2006.pdf
describes Dr. Kang's report of a 180% increase in birth defects in the
children of female February, 1991 Gulf War veterans as 'modest' on page 574.

"Are there any other descriptions in the literature or popular press where
a near-tripling of a serious medical condition is referred to 'modest'?

"I have a several-page letter from Charles Miller of the NRC where he tries
to defend that characterization at length, but repeatedly implies
throughout that the increase reported by Dr. Kang was described by Doyle
and Ryan as 'moderate' instead of modest. You can probably find the letter
on the NRC's ADAMS document management system from their web site."

This is actually a Doyle et al. paper.  It has three authors.

On page 574, about one-fourth of the way down the page, Doyle et
al. write, "Two surveys stand out as being particularly large: one from the
USA (Kang et al. 2001) and the other from the UK (Doyle et al. 2004).  Both
reported some evidence of a modest increase in risk of birth defect for
male veterans' offspring born after the war, although cautious
interpretations were offered because of concern about reporting bias."

I have read the Kang et al. (2001) paper, and nowhere in it does
there appear to be the figures "180%" or "220%".  Therefore I am assuming
(note the qualifier) that you, JS, have derived these two percentages from
something in the Kang et al. (2001) study.  If you have derived them,
please give the figures that form the basis for your derivation, and the
page numbers and columns where you find them.  What are the calculations
you performed to arrive at the percentages of 180% and 220%?  Show your
work.  Please also justify your calculations --- that is, explain the line
of reasoning you used to warrant making these calculations.  [If "180%" and
"220%" appear in Kang et al. (2001) please give the page numbers and
columns where they appear.]

"near-tripling" charge.  *After* that has been settled, we can talk about
your definition of "serious medical condition."

What Charles Miller of the NRC may have said is irrelevant and
immaterial, and in point of fact it is a red herring.

You have written, "The fact remains that the number of birth
defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War
troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from
the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003."

Prove it.  And leave "Charles Miller" out of it.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com

REFERENCES

Doyle, P. et al.  2004  Miscarriage, stillbirth and congenital malformation
in the offspring of UK veterans of the first Gulf war.  Int. J.
Epidemiol.  33, 74-86.

Kang, H. et al.  2001  Pregnancy outcomes among US Gulf war veterans: a
population-based survey of 30,000 veterans.  Ann. Epidemiol.  11, 504-511.

```