Point 5 talks about “larger civilian studies”. This is completely contradicted by the United Nations report that I have provided as supporting documentation. What I find troubling about point 5 is that Dr. Morisset thinks that he holds the truth in his hands. But currently, medicine knows very little about uranium contamination. So point 5 is highly doubtful. Personally, I find it removes a lot of credibility from the document.
Point 6 says that:
6. Our finding that exposure to uranium is not associated with a large or frequent health effect is in agreement with the conclusions of other expert bodies.
So it is not frequent. As I said earlier, I do not know why I react to uranium poisoning more than others do. I just take the words “not frequent” to mean that it exists all the same. Can you take care of people who have health problems associated with uranium poisoning? “Not frequent” does not mean that it does not exist.
Point 7 says this:
7. There are many veterans suffering from persistent symptoms following deployment or military conflict which, although not linked to specific exposures such as depleted uranium, can cause considerable suffering and can be effectively treated.
If that is the case, why do you not provide us with the treatment? We are ready to be treated. You say that the symptoms are not associated with uranium poisoning. But what I want is to feel good when I get up in the morning. What I want is some quality of life. So if ever that means anything to you…