Veterans Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2013

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The scientific study that was done excluded case reports, cross-sectional studies and clinical studies of hospitalized veterans, whatever the outcomes. In your opinion, is that a weakness in the study, the fact that these things were excluded?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

I would have to read the actual study to determine, but in general, a case report—that's not a weakness. Part of the problem you have with a case report is that we're dealing with a distribution of people who get illnesses or don't get illnesses.

The best analogy I have is that if I had a jarful of multicoloured M&M's, a case report is like reaching in once, pulling out a red one, and saying they're all red. You need to pull out more M&M's to get a good understanding of what the distribution actually is in the bottle.

That's what these studies are intended to do.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

That's the difficulty we find ourselves in. We've had a couple of veterans appear before the committee—very passionate, very convinced, and very sick—and yet we have a report that wouldn't look at their records, that came up with a conclusion based on a paper review.

One of the veterans who appeared in front of us provided us with some work that was done in examining hair samples. Could you offer an opinion on the reliability of that type of testing as compared with others in determining levels or traces of radioactive material?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

Unfortunately, I can't. I haven't studied using hair for radioactive material. Anything I would say would be strictly conjecture.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much, Dr. Daxon.

Oh, and by the way, you don't have to give us that information. The woman in question will be appearing before us on Tuesday.

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

Excellent.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. O'Toole, please.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I thank you very much, Dr. Daxon.

I have two questions, a short one and then one a little longer.

In your opening statement, you said that you'd reviewed and agreed with the report chaired by Dr. Morisset. Is it fair to say that the report is as up to date and as widely consultative as possible on the subject of DU?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

Yes, I believe it is. They took good advantage of the multiple extensive reviews of the literature that have occurred through the years. To me, that's just good science.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you.

It was difficult when we had Madame Richard in here, because as Mr. Casey alluded to, and as many of us have said, we want to help our veterans. I joined the forces shortly after the Gulf War, and have watched the issues that....

Most of her testimony related more to Gulf War syndrome as opposed to DU. In my reading over the years, DU was held out as a possible cause for idiopathic illness around the Gulf War, or what she described as unexplained multi-symptom illness, Gulf War syndrome.

Have you found that both the literature that Dr. Morisset's group reviewed and your own research have really excluded DU as a possible cause for the wider Gulf War syndrome?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

Yes, I have. I'll answer plainly, because the report was written in plain language, so yes.

Scientifically I've got a problem, because the way I'm trained, there is a probability that I could stand up, walk toward that wall, and walk through the wall. I can't exclude that because of the way I'm trained.

So if you ask me for 100% certainty, I'm going to be very hesitant to do it, but the report was written in plain language, so I'm going to answer plainly. I believe that DU has been ruled out as a causative agent.

That doesn't mean these veterans are not sick. They are.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Yes, and that's what conclusion seven of Dr. Morisset and the group's study recognized. When Dr. Morisset appeared here, it was his professional opinion, and I would ask if you agree, that often when it's idiopathic, it can't be explained. It's better to treat the symptoms than really to try to find the magic bullet of causation.

Even in Madame Richard's opening statement to us, she talked about vaccines, prisoner contact, organophosphates, oil field fires.

In your opinion, is it causation that's more important, or is it treating the symptoms?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

I am not a physician, but the one thing every physician I've ever dealt with has basically told me is, “I don't care what you tell me the dose is, I'm going to treat the patient in front of me.” So I would believe that. I think it's important that physicians be allowed to treat the patient in front of them.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go on to Ms. Mathyssen and then Monsieur Chicoine.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much, Dr. Daxon, for being here.

I'm going to continue in the vein that has been followed by the last two questioners, and that is, that people such as Madame Richard and Monsieur Lacoste believe that they are the victims of depleted uranium, and that's what we've been pursuing.

About one week ago or so, Dr. Nicholas Priest from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited told the committee that we do indeed seem to be concerned about DU because whenever you ask about all of these chemicals, vaccines, and toxins people such as Monsieur Lacoste and Madame Richard were exposed to, the response is, “We can't talk about that; that's a secret”, and in the effort to maintain that secret, we're chasing the wrong explanation.

Would you agree with Dr. Priest that we should be looking at something else? What happened to these people? Is it possible that if we do look at this cocktail of toxins and vaccines, we may find culpability with the Department of National Defence here in Canada and with the Department of Defense in the United States? Is that the problem?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

In terms of culpability with the vaccines, I really can't address that. I'd just be speculating.

In terms of whether or not DU should be listed in this mix, right now the evidence says no, that it shouldn't, that it would be better if people focused in other directions.

I have a little personal story. I had severe neck pain that would kind of drop me to my knees for a while. This was during the response to the World Trade Center bombings. It was really bad. I had an old injury that I thought had been aggravated and I assumed it was going to need surgery so I didn't want to go in. I'm a guy. I finally went in and talked to the physician. He listened to me and he said, “Oh, it's stress.” I said, “No, it's not. You have to operate on me. This can't be stress. It hurts too much.” He convinced me, and I started taking the medication. Two or three weeks later, the episodes stopped, and I haven't had one since. I can't imagine what I would have done if I had been convinced that I needed surgery and then I tried to find a surgeon to operate on me. No ethical surgeon would, because there was nothing wrong with my neck. I needed to be treated for stress.

That's how I would answer that question. I firmly believe, after being beaten up by many physicians, that a physician needs to treat the patient in front of them.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Monsieur Chicoine, please ask a very quick question.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to continue somewhat along the same lines as Ms. Mathyssen.

You also mentioned in your opening statement that it is important to determine the source of veterans' health problems.

Here in Canada, it seems that we have long suspected uranium as being the cause of illnesses. However, that seems to be less and less the case. And yet, other tests or examinations have not really been conducted to determine the source of Gulf War syndrome, among others. This syndrome is common among veterans who, upon their return from different conflicts, experience similar health problems.

What is your experience of that situation in the United States? Have studies been done that could point to other elements as being the possible source of Gulf War syndrome in particular?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

I'm speculating, because it's not my area, but yes, I know studies were conducted. There are several epidemiological studies, some of which were conducted by our Department of Veterans Affairs, looking at other potential causative agents.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peter Stoffer]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Lizon, you get to back up the team, sir.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming, Dr. Daxon.

We're talking about urine tests to determine the presence of depleted uranium. Can you tell the committee how it is determined that depleted uranium as opposed to natural uranium is in the urine?

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

Oh, I'd love to. I'm serious, because this is right in line with what I do.

We're looking at the ratio between uranium-235 and uranium-238. There are alpha spectroscopy and some mass spectroscopy methodologies that will allow us to determine what that ratio is. If the amount of U-235 is around 0.7%, it's natural. If it's less than 0.7%, by definition it's called depleted uranium. If it's 0.2%, then it was DU that was made in the U.S.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you very much. I would assume that it would be the same principle if they test hair, for example.

[Dr. Eric Daxon]

Yes.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Would you say that a primary conclusion of the report is that Canadian veterans have never had the combination of proximity and exposure to depleted uranium that could pose a negative health risk?