A: No. It's doing the job that I was elected to do and trying to represent veterans who are hurting. I think they were wrong. And I think you're beginning to see a very clear change, as a matter of fact, after that letter you're beginning to see a number of people on the Committee who are saying, Well, we think it was wrong to exclude the issue of chemicals from our conclusion, and in fact, as you know, in their draft release of several months ago, they were very critical of the DOD in terms of how they looked at the role that chemicals may have played.

Not to mention that the GAO, the General Accounting Office, thought that if present trends continued there's no reason to believe that the DOD or the VA are going to discover the cause of the problem or an effective treatment. So it's not just members of Congress, but basically, I think that the initial recognition, conclusion of the PAC, was dead wrong, and what I wanted to show is that we have many people in the United States Congress who believe that chemicals played a role and that has got to be considered.

Q: But you're not a scientists and your colleagues in Congress are not usually scientists, and here's a panel that was charged with looking at this, so, why not accept their --

A: Well, panels, you know when you get involved in politics, politics is a funny thing. Some of us actually believe that we come closer to representing the interests of people who are hurting than committees that are appointed by other people. Nobody is immune to political pressure and people are appointed for various reasons.

I think what you are seeing now is a change in the conclusions that members of the Presidential Advisory Committee have come up with. And while you can say, correctly, that the Presidential Advisory Committee is independent from the DOD and the VA, there's no question but that they got an enormous amount of the information from the VA and the DOD and that they have a working relationship with them. I think in this whole issue, the Congress in fact, has played a reasonable role in trying to raise the right issues and demanding that the VA and the DOD do the right thing.

Q: It's your realm to raise issues and represent the veterans in your constituents. But the causation issue, the cause and effect of Gulf War illness is an empirical question that scientists are the ones qualified to answer and it's not as if, I think, the PAC would say if they were sitting here, it's not as if they didn't consider depleted uranium, pb pills, biological weapons, pesticides, insecticide, chemical weapons, in their report. They review all this literature you mention. So I'll ask you again, they have said, and I've interviewed them all at length pretty recently, that it is not their view that these things are likely risk factors or contributing factors to this disease. Why can't you accept their verdict?

A: I can't accept their verdict because I have also not only talked to some of those folks, we have also talked and interviewed, and met with scientists who have done substantial research which suggests otherwise. We think that the work those scientists have done in connecting the use of pb pills with pesticides in the causation of illness, is an important step forward and that type of evidence did not get the kind of consideration that it should have gotten from the Presidential Advisory Committee.

We think that within the circles of the government, when you have the DOD and the VA saying something that does have an impact on the members of the Presidential Advisory Committee, without challenging their sincerity. But I think that the evidence is out there that there are whole other lines of research that must be pursued that are not being pursued. To simply conclude that the environmental factors, it was a chemical cesspool in the Gulf War. People were given experimental drugs, vaccines, exposed to chemical warfare agents, exposed to depleted uranium, and to believe that that type of exposure did not play a role in Gulf War illness seems to me probably not correct.

What we would like to do, I'm not a scientist, but what I would like to see is far more research be done in those areas. And the bottom line, the bottom line, if you went to a doctor and you had a variety of symptoms and you were sick, and after six years of going to that doctor you said, Doc, what's wrong with me? And the doctor said, John, I don't understand the cause of your problem and I have no treatment for you. What you would probably say is, Thanks very much doctor. I'm going someplace else. I think that's the stage that we're in.

There are scientists, even scientists within the government, and that's why I fought very hard to get $7 million for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who do believe that chemicals may have played a role, who want to vigorously pursue the issue. I am not a scientist, but I think it is insane that we are not vigorously pursuing areas that some independent scientists have had good results in, that we are not looking at treatments around the country where some physicians claim to have some success. It is a difficult issue, and I'm not here to personally attack anybody, but it seems to me, what common sense dictates is that the VA and the DOD should have gone wherever they could to look at the research that wa having some results. Bringing in those people and saying, How did you get those results? How can we follow up and find out whether it's true or not? Who was effectively treating? There are some reports that we hear that there are doctors effectively treating Gulf War illness. Those doctors should be brought in immediately and seen if they have something to offer us. That has not been the case.

Q: One final question on that. While I think they would not be adverse to research on that, I think they considered, they did consider, I asked them about many of the studies of the people in your letter, and I think it's pretty clear that they have considered them. They don't actually think very much of them.

A: Fine. They don't think very much of them. But go out to the veterans community and go out to the people who are suffering, and speak to them. You know, science -- I've got news for you, I don't want to hurt your feelings here, but science is not so different from politics. There are honest people with very different points of view. And I have people who disagree with me politically. I don't attack their motives, we just disagree.

In the scientific community there is a hotly debated issue -- whole area of fierce debate as to the role the chemicals may be playing in making people sick, and that is true within our civilian sector. It is true in terms of service in the Gulf War. There are some people who believe very strongly, who have done research and say, Don't be ridiculous, of course it's a chemical exposure. There are very reputable, distinguished scientists who say, I see the same symptoms every day from people who are exposed to chemicals in the civilian sector as I see treating Gulf War veterans. They say, Of course, there's no question in my mind. And there are other people who say, All of these doctors are crazy, they're quacks, there is no science behind them. There are differences of opinion.

What I'm suggesting is, given the fact that after six years the VA and the DOD have failed in their particular approach of the problem, it's time to look elsewhere. And I think there are serious scientists out there who already have come up with some interesting results. Their work may not be taken seriously by the Presidential Advisory Committee, that's fine. But they are being taken seriously by other scientists, by veterans communities, and by those people who are seeking treatment.

Q: I think you made a very good argument for the importance of investigating these areas. Let me bring to you some of the arguments I've heard from more main stream scientists about the dangers of pursuing this. One argument would say that when politics becomes too involved in something like this you end up funding junk science.

A: Forty years ago there were doctors who were advertising on television telling people about the cigarettes that they smoked. They smoked this particular brand of cigarettes because it tastes better. It's cooler for their throat. They were physicians who were on television advertising cigarettes. Thirty years ago there were doctors seriously telling women in this country not to breast feed their children, that it's just not a womanly thing to do, and it's bad for your child if you breastfeed. Twenty years ago in this country there were doctors who were saying there is no relationship between nutrition and disease. That anybody who would say there's a correlation between a high fat diet and heart disease is crazy. Is really a fringe person. Now it's mainstream science. So, in the whole issue, what we're really debating now, is the role that chemicals may play in making us sick.

We have a multi zillion dollar chemical industry, by the way, who would prefer not to have serious discussion on that. No pesticides in the food. They're good for you. Just keep eating them. It's not a problem. No air pollution. It really doesn't cause any problems on human health, and so forth and so on. There are other scientists who, for decades, have been saying, Be careful. There are too many chemicals in our food, in the air, in the drugs that we're taking. It is debated. There are honest scientists on both sides of the issue. And what I am suggesting is that there are very reputable, serious scientists and more and more of them every day are saying, Wait a minute, of course, when people are exposed to all kinds of these powerful chemicals, when they take powerful drugs, we can expect various types of symptomatology to develop. Whether they are right or wrong, let science determine.

I think the case is very clear that the VA and the DOD have not gone out to those people, or have been very reluctant to acknowledge their work. That whole area of research has been dismissed. But the bottom line, let me get back to the bottom line, the bottom line is, if, for six years you went to see a doctor and you were suffering, and you were hurting, and after six years the doctor said, "I don't know the cause of your problem and I have no treatment. But I know that everybody else out there is wrong and we're not going to take them seriously. You keep coming back to me, although I haven't found the cause and I can't treat you." I think you would say, "thank you doctor, I'm leaving. I'm going to somebody else." I think it is time for us to open up our eyes and to pursue other approaches.

Q: But we have incurable diseases that have nothing to do with the Gulf, and we know that those areas, like incurable cancer, they attract quacks to them don't they?

A: Sure.

Q: So there's a danger. My question is really, and this has been raised to me, that some of the projects that have been funded, normally probably wouldn't get funded. You have a primary care physician, Hyman in Louisiana who was given $3.2 million taxpayers money and he doesn't have much of a research background. Is it your position, given the importance of this issue, it should be funded anyway?

A: I don't think you say, "Here's some money for you, and here's some money for you and your very weird theory." What I am suggesting is that, if you have doctors who look at the problem from a certain approach, who already, in their own hearts and in their own minds, do not believe that chemicals could play a role, that when another doctor comes forward and says, "I think that chemicals may have played a role," they say, "Well that's not serious science." What I am suggesting is there is a division within the scientific community and you have honorable and honest people on both sides. And you may well have quacks and crooks on both sides as well. That's human nature. But to suggest that there are not serious scientists who are well published, who are peer reviewed, who are indicating and demonstrating the role the chemicals have played in making people sick, to dismiss that is to be living in the past. And I have not the slightest doubt that, 10, 20, 30 years from now that whole area of science, which is rapidly growing by the way, that more and more physicians and more and more citizens are believing --

Q: Garth Nicolson has a theory that GWS is caused by an infectious agent called a mycoplasma. Some concerns have been raised here one, because he is now, he's not an M.D., and two, because he's saying that people with conditions as severe as Lou Gehrig's Disease, can be cured by taking antibiotics. Can't you see the danger in that?

A: Do I see the danger? No. I think --

Q: Of giving false hope?

A: No. It's not a question of false hope. I think what you should do is take his research and subject it to scientific inquiry by objective people and see whether he is right or wrong, partially right or partially wrong. I do not think he should be dismissed. But let me turn the tables, and say to all of these scientists who tell us that nobody else is doing serious work out there, what have they discovered after six years? What is their understanding? Oh, it's an incurable problem. There is no cause for the problem. That's not a particularly good answer.

Q: So where do we seek closure on this issue? Do we have a long way to go yet?

A: I think we do. Unfortunately. I think after six years. Just compare it to where we are with AIDS. We know the cause of AIDS, not to compare AIDS with Gulf War illnesses, totally different illnesses. But if, at this particular point, after all the government's investment in AIDS research, the people doing the research were to come back and say "Gee, we don't know how AIDS is caused. And we have not developed any treatment which helps AIDS victims." People would say "Gees. Where've we been spending all this money? What have you guys been doing?" That's not the case. We have had some breakthrough. People with AIDS are now living longer, more dignified lives. We understand the causation of AIDS.

Serious research is being undertaken today. Gulf War, now let's look at that. Six years later, where are we? Have we made any breakthroughs? No. Do we have any theories? Not really. Are we having any effective treatments from the VA and the VA(?)? No we don't. Why do we continue on this process? There are people out there who are making some breakthroughs. I think we pursue it. Am I going to sit here and guaranty you that these people have all the answers? I certainly am not. All that I am saying is, Listen. Broaden the tent. Bring in people who are doing research, even if that type of research does not fit the patterns that some of the VA and the DOD scientists believe is within the norm.