There was nothing I thought that should have been included that wasn't, nothing missing the mark.
I do think that in their extensive review of some of the Gulf War I deployment epidemiology, they didn't make it clear that those studies were not proxies or depleted uranium exposure; rather, they were studies of the effect of deployment itself and all of the unmeasured exposures that occur with deployment. I think that point could have been made more clearly.
However, what that does is it really dilutes the reason the committee had asked them to review this. In other words, if there were findings in these generic Gulf War deployment studies, which there were not, it still wouldn't have helped the committee know whether it was DU related or not. That was one thing I would have made more clear to the reader.
Nonetheless, I think it was important for your committee to see that a lot of these questions have been asked and answered academically already.