Hyperlink to download: Dapsone All.pdf 5089 KB

 

Jim Wiltshire distributed the information concerning Dapsone as individual pages. I was able to convert this into a single "PDF" file, which makes for easier reading. It raises some interesting issues in addition to the medical ones.

If you use the search term "Dapsone" in any search engine you should get a wealth of information about Dapsone.

If you have any queries Jim is the man who probably has the information.

Terry Fogarty
1st October, 2007.

From: Jim Wiltshire [mailto:tjimw1@iprimus.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2007 10:23 PM
To: Jim Wiltshire
Subject: THE MENGELE MINDSET - Josef walks in the Corridors of Power

 

G'Day,

 

The following document or an appropriate variation, has been sent to all repeat all Australian politicians, and to selected media outlets. My media list is far from all-inclusive, so I urge you all to send a similar document to your own media outlets and you own contact lists. Please include your usual list of politicians on your distribution. The more directions they all get hit from the groggier they will get.

 

Now is not the time to relax. Now is the time to turn up the heat.

 

Thank you for your patience.



Jim Wiltshire,

107 Phillips St Wodonga 3690.

02 6024 1047. Or: 0412 161047

 


 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

The document below has been circulating throughout the "Dear Veteran Community" within Australia and overseas since early yesterday, 29 September 2007. Emails referred to have been sent, and as one compiled PDF document are on several Internet Sites for the world to see and download:http://vesca.tripod.com/Veterans/Dapsone/Dapsone.htm is one of them. It is too late to go into damage control. Please inform those among you who believe that Veterans are "Not in my Portfolio", and who therefore will not access this email. You will be most unpopular if you don't.

 

Sleep Well

 

G'Day

 

I am about to send a series of emails - about 12 - which reveal some things most of you have long suspected and which have been topics of discussion on some forums. This is the officially documented proof of your suspicions. The Mad Galah's are not so mad after all. Emails will be as small as I can make them for the benefit of those with limited in-boxes, and there will be a short delay in between sending each one.

 

Some of you may get them twice. You'll have to live with it for now. Apologies, but when you get them you'll know that you prefer that to not having got anything at all.

 

Some of you have previously asked to be taken off my lists, and I have obliged. You are back on for this series.  Yes, it is that important. Any-one with objections had best be quick to say so.

 

I will be sending the same information to the politicians and the media on my lists as well. Without this advance notice. I'm sure many of them will be weaving and ducking, but with all of us in the know and as many as possible of you also contacting them, and distributing the info elsewhere, they can no longer deny their guilt. I am not the only person in possession of these facts.

 

For those who after all this time still have faith in your so-called Leaders, you don't have long until the bubble splatters.

 

Jim Wiltshire,

107 Phillips St Wodonga 3690.

02 6024 1047. Or: 0412 161047

 

LEGISLATE OR VACATE

 

 

 

 

From: Bill Dobell [mailto:bill.dobell@bigpond.com]
Sent: Monday, 1 October 2007 8:22 AM
To: Bill Dobell
Subject: FW: Illegal Bio-Medical Experimentation with Dapson Vietnam 1968

 

 

 


From: Geoff Sanders [mailto:sandersg@aapt.net.au]
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2007 11:23 PM
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@connect.com.au
Subject: Illegal Bio-Medical Experimentation with Dapson Vietnam 1968

As some of you are already aware, on the 26th of September, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs Bruce Billson released a Media Statement stating: Study finds anti-malarial drug Dapsone not harmful 162/07 Wednesday 26 September 2007 which can be found at http://minister.dva.gov.au/media_releases/index.htm

 

The full summary is available at the DVA Web Site http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/dapsone.htm

Also refer to Ern Marshall's site for further commentary: http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/medical/dapsone5.html

The two web sites referred to above by Geoff Sanders are shown in this web page.
Scroll down.
TF 1/10/07

Some background information about Dapsone - I have extracted a few salient points, but recommend that you read the full details at:

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/dapsone.htm

Dapsone

DAPSONE TABLETS USP (Jacobus)
25 mg. & 100 mg.

PRODUCT OVERVIEW

KEY FACTS
Dapsone is a sulfone for the primary treatment of Dermatitis herpetiformis and an antibacterial drug for susceptible cases of leprosy.

MAJOR USES
Dapsone is used to control the dermatologic symptoms of Dermatitis herpetiformis. Dapsone is used alone or in combination with other anti-leprosy drugs for leprosy.

(Geoff - I strongly recommend that you read the full description of this drug and its side-effects from the URL above, however below are some of the primary side effects of concern to veterans - how many of these can you relate to?).

Body As A Whole

In addition to the warnings and adverse effects reported above, additional adverse reactions include: nausea, vomiting, abdominal pains, pancreatitis, vertigo, blurred vision, tinnitus, insomnia, fever, headache, psychosis, phototoxicity, pulmonary eosinophilia, tachycardia, albuminuria, the nephrotic syndrome, hypoalbuminemia without proteinuria, renal papillary necrosis, male infertility, drug-induced Lupus erythematosus and an infectious mononucleosis-like syndrome. In general, with the exception of the complications of severe anoxia from overdosage (retinal and optic nerve damage, etc.) these adverse reactions have regressed off drug.

Other Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dapsone

I will follow this email with a PDF file under seperate posting that details the original Instructions for the Dapson trial, supplied by Jim Wiltshire and subsequently I will also forward other material from Jim and other sources.

Should you prefer to not receive this information, simply drop me an Email requesting removal from my Dapson Distribution List.

Regards

Geoff Sanders

 

 

Study of cancer incidence in relation to dapsone use

Executive summary

Background

Perceived ill-health of Vietnam veterans and their families has been a public issue since 1978. Initially, the major concern was possible effects of exposure of Vietnam veterans to some herbicides (notably Agent Orange) used during the Vietnam conflict.

Two studies, of mortality among Vietnam veterans and of birth defects in their children, were commissioned by the Commonwealth Government in the early 1980s but did not find any effects attributable to the use of chemicals in Vietnam. The Royal Commission into the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam was established in 1983.

Dapsone was one of the chemicals reviewed by the Royal Commission. During the Vietnam conflict Australian forces had used this drug, initially for the treatment of falciparum malaria and later also for its prevention. The Royal Commission recommended studies into the carcinogenicity of dapsone. The recommendation was supported by the Hogg report, which was commissioned by the Commonwealth to coordinate its response to the findings of the Royal Commission.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs asked the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW – then called the Australian Institute of Health) to conduct a study of cancer incidence in relation to dapsone use. A protocol, completed in November 1990, defined the study aims and design, dealing with data collection and analysis, limitations of the study, reporting, and privacy. This protocol was accepted by the Scientific Advisory Committee formed to advise the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the study, the State and Territory cancer registries, and the AIHW Ethics Committee.

Dapsone

Dapsone (4,4'-diaminodiphenyl-sulphone) is a sulphonamide-like drug that probably acts by inhibiting folate synthesis. Folate synthesis is an essential metabolic step in those unicellular organisms that, unlike humans, cannot use preformed folates. Dapsone is used for short- and long-term treatment of leprosy and for the prevention and treatment of malaria. Adverse reactions to its use include haemolytic anaemia, methaemoglobinaemia, peripheral neuropathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, fever, pruritus and various rashes.

Despite dapsone's widespread clinical use for many years, there is little evidence that it is associated with an increased risk of cancer. There are case reports of cancers among persons who have taken dapsone, but no specific or unusual site of cancer consistently appears in these reports. None of the reports gives a biological argument for an association of specific cancers with dapsone use. Moreover, most of the patients described in these reports had leprosy and had taken dapsone at higher doses and for much longer than was the case with dapsone used prophylactically against or as treatment for malaria by Australian servicemen.

Chronic carcinogenicity studies undertaken in both rats and mice show limited evidence of carcinogenicity. Mutagenicity studies have also been equivocal.

In the absence of further data, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has been unable to determine whether dapsone should be regarded as a carcinogen of humans.

Sites of cancer of a priori interest

For dapsone exposure, the sites of cancer that have been noted in previous studies are non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, oral cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer and leukemia. Because of the earlier interest in herbicides, this study also examines cancer incidence for sites of cancer that have been hypothesised as being related to herbicide exposure: non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, soft tissue and other sarcoma, nasal cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, thyroid cancer, testis cancer and primary liver cancer.

Design of this study

The aim of this study was to assess and quantify any association between cancer incidence and exposure to dapsone and to Vietnam service among Australian Army servicemen who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict.

The study cohort ('servicemen') consisted of all 115,407 males who served in the Australian Army for at least one year between 1 January 1965 and 1 March 1972. Identification of servicemen, those who had been exposed to dapsone, and those treated for malaria was done through Army records. Cancer incidence was determined by reference to State and Territory cancer registry records for the period 1972 to 1989, although not all registries had complete coverage for all of this period. Cancer incidence was examined for all cancers, and for 28 sites of cancer that included the cancers of a priori interest as well as groupings with more than 30 incident cases.

Cancer incidence rates, controlling for age and calendar year, were compared for several subgroups of servicemen:

  • dapsone-exposed Vietnam veterans compared with non-exposed Vietnam veterans;
  • for dapsone-exposed Vietnam veterans, those with the higher exposures compared with those with the lower exposures;
  • Vietnam veterans with malaria compared with other Vietnam veterans;
  • Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans;
  • dapsone-exposed Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans;
  • servicemen compared with other males in the Australian population.

Where possible, these comparisons were made separately for National Service (conscript) and Australian Regular Army (volunteer) servicemen.

Cancer mortality was not directly assessed.

Cancer incidence and dapsone exposure

Total cancer incidence

A total of 509 cancers were identified among Vietnam veterans. The relative cancer incidence rate at all sites combined for dapsone-exposed servicemen compared with other Vietnam veterans was 0.88. The 95 per cent confidence interval (95% CI) for the relative rate is 0.74 to 1.05, which includes equal incidence rates in both groups. The upper limit shows that the data from this study are inconsistent with a markedly higher total cancer incidence among dapsone-exposed servicemen compared with other Vietnam veterans; that is, there is no evidence from this study of an excess of overall cancer occurrence in those Vietnam veterans who had taken dapsone.

Relative cancer incidence rates among dapsone-exposed Vietnam veterans compared with other Vietnam veterans: all sites
Number of cancer cases among Vietnam veterans   
Exposed to dapsoneNot exposed to dapsoneRelative incidence rate95% CI
247 262 0.88 (0.74, 1.05)

Most servicemen who took dapsone took a total (cumulative) dose of less than 5 grams. Dapsone-exposed servicemen whose total dose of dapsone differed by 5 grams were estimated to have a 1.1-fold difference in their overall cancer incidence rate. The 95 per cent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.5, is consistent with no difference in cancer incidence for servicemen exposed to different doses of dapsone. The upper limit of this confidence interval shows that the data from the study are inconsistent with large differences in total cancer incidence for servicemen exposed to different total doses of dapsone; that is, Vietnam veterans who took more dapsone did not appear to be much more likely to develop cancer than those who took less dapsone.

Different sites of cancer

For none of the 28 sites of cancer examined was the cancer incidence among the dapsone-exposed servicemen statistically significantly greater than that among other Vietnam veterans. For no site of cancer examined was there a statistically significant dose-response relationship between the total amount of dapsone received and cancer incidence.

For one cancer, that of the testis, the rate of occurrence was much less than expected. On biological and statistical grounds, this apparent protective effect of dapsone probably reflects chance alone.

Specific sites of cancer

Six sites of cancer-non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, kidney, Hodgkin's disease, bladder, oral and leukemia-were of particular interest because previous research, independent of this study, had suggested that they might be associated with dapsone exposure. None of these sites had, however, shown particularly marked relationships with dapsone exposure in these other data sets. This was also the case in this study.

Relative cancer incidence rates among dapsone-exposed Vietnam veterans compared with other Vietnam veterans: specific sites
 Number of cancer cases among Vletnam veterans  
Cancer siteExposed to dapsoneNot exposed to dapsoneRelative Incidence rate95% C
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
(ICD 200, 202)
1991.8(0.8, 3.9)
Kidney (ICD 189)661.3(0.4, 4.1)
Hodgkin's disease (ICD 201)741.2(0.3, 5.5)
Bladder (ICD 188)13141.0(0.5, 2.1)
Oral (ICD 140-146,149)16270.6(0.3, 1.1)
Leukemia (ICD 204-208) 7130.5(0.2, 1.2)

 
Dose response among dapsone-exposed Vietnam veterans: specific sites
Cancer siteRelative incidence rate for doses differing by 5 grams95%Cl
Non-Hodgkin's Iymphoma (ICD 200, 202)0.5(0.2, 1.4)
Kidney (ICD 189)0.5(0.1, 3.1)
Hodgkin's disease (ICD 201)1.2(0.2, 6.6)
Bladder (ICD 188)2.1(0.6, 7.3)
Oral (ICD 140-146, 149)0.9(0.3, 2.7)
Leukemia (ICD 204-208)1.8(0.3, 9.9)

For none of these six sites was the cancer incidence particularly high among dapsone-exposed servicemen compared with other Vietnam veterans. None of the relative incidence rates was statistically significantly different from equal cancer incidence rates in the two groups of servicemen. The dose-response relationships were also unremarkable.

The observed relative rates are similar to those for total cancer incidence and for other sites of cancer. If dapsone exposure were causing some cancers, increased cancer incidence should be apparent among some or all of these six specific sites of cancer, even if the elevation in rates was not statistically significant. Cancer incidence for these six sites, individually and collectively, cannot be taken as definite evidence that dapsone exposure has led to an increased number of cancers.

The wide confidence intervals for some comparisons show, however, that this study has low power to detect differences in cancer incidence for some sites of cancer. The maximum latency period between dapsone exposure and registration of a cancer is 24 years, so an increase in cancer incidence 20 or more years after exposure to dapsone may not be detected by this study.

Cancer incidence and Vietnam service

Total cancer incidence

The study identified a total of 1,638 cancers among the servicemen. The overall relative cancer incidence rate for Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans (those servicemen who had not been posted to Vietnam) was 0.99. The 95 per cent confidence interval for the relative rate is 0.89 to 1.10, which includes equal incidence rates in both groups. The upper limit shows that the data from this study are inconsistent with a markedly higher total cancer incidence among Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans.

Relative cancer incidence rates among Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans: all sites
Number of cancer cases among servicemen  
Served in VietnamDid not serve in VietnamRelative Incidence rate95% Cl
5091,1290.99(0.89, 1.10)

Different sites of cancer

For none of the 28 sites of cancer examined was the cancer incidence among Vietnam veterans statistically significantly greater than that among non-veterans. This was also true for servicemen who had served as volunteers in the Australian Regular Army. Among National Servicemen three sites of cancer-pancreas, lung and brain-showed statistically significantly higher incidence among Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans.

Relative cancer incidence rates among Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans: selected sites
 National ServiceAustralian Regular Army
 
No of cases
Relative Incidence  
No. of cases
Relative Incidence  
Cancer site VVNVrate95%CIVVNVrate95%CI
Pancreas
(ICD 157)
7111.0(1.4, >10)6240.9(0.4, 2.1)
Lung
(ICD 162)
1363.9(1.5, 10.0)461580.8(0.5, 1.1)
Brain
(ICD 191)
873.0(1.1, 8.2)9141.0(0.4, 2.3)

Note: 'VV' denotes Vietnam veteran; 'NV' denotes non-veteran

There was nothing in the medical literature to link these three sites of cancer with Vietnam service. Curiously, any increased risk is apparently confined to National Servicemen because the estimated risks for these sites of cancer among members of the Australian Regular Army are not greater than unity. This could, however, occur if there were some relevant aspect of Vietnam service that differed substantially between these two groups of servicemen.

One statistical consideration is that these three nominally statistically significant results have occurred when testing for differences at 29 sites in the two service groups. With so many tests, it is to be expected that, even if there were no real underlying difference, chance would result in a few being nominally statistically significant. For 58 tests, the expected number of nominally statistically significant raised estimates is 1.4, and observing three such results is not unusual.

Specific sites of cancer

Eight sites of cancer-nasopharyngeal, primary liver, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, soft tissue, thyroid, testis and nasal-were of particular interest because previous research, independent of this study, had nominated them as possibly being associated with herbicide exposure. The following table shows relative cancer incidence rates for these sites.

Relative cancer incidence rates among Vietnam veterans compared with non-veterans: specific sites
 Number of cases  
Cancer siteVietnam veterans
Non-veterans
Relative Incidence rate 95% CI
Nasopharyngeal (ICD 147) 4 1 5.8 (0.6, >10)
Primary liver (ICD 155) 3 2 3.0 (0.3, >10)
Non-Hodgkin's Iymphoma
(ICD 200, 202)
28 47 1.1 (0.7, 1.8)
Hodgkin's disease (ICD 201) 11 22 1.1 (0.5, 2.2)
Soft tissue and other sarcoma
(ICD 170-171)
10 19 1.0 (0.4, 2.1)
Thyroid (ICD 193) 3 8 0.9 (0.1, 3.5)
Testis (ICD 186) 26 57 0.8 (0.5, 1.2)
Nasal (ICD 160) 1 3 0.4 (0.0, 5.3)

If herbicide exposure were causing some cancers and if Vietnam veterans were exposed to herbicides, increased cancer incidence should be apparent among some or all of the specific sites of cancer, even if the elevation in rates was not statistically significant. For no site is cancer incidence among Vietnam veterans statistically significantly different from that among non-veterans. The two highest and the lowest estimated relative rates are based on five or fewer cancer cases, and the confidence intervals are correspondingly wide. The other five estimated rates, based on more than 10 cancer cases, are close to unity. Cancer incidence for these five sites of cancer, individually and collectively, cannot be taken as definite evidence that posting to Vietnam has led to an increased number of cancers.

Conclusion

The study revealed no definite evidence that dapsone exposure was associated with an increase in total cancer incidence. Cancer incidence was assessed at six sites that had been suggested in previous publications as those for which an effect of dapsone was most likely. The study does not provide definite evidence of increased cancer incidence at these sites. Similar conclusions apply to the other 22 sites that were examined.

The study revealed no definite evidence that Vietnam service was associated with an increase in total cancer incidence. Cancer incidence was assessed at eight sites that had been suggested in previous publications as those for which an effect of exposure to herbicides was most likely. The study does not provide definite evidence of increased cancer incidence at these sites. Similar conclusions apply to the other 20 sites that were examined.

For those sites of cancer with few cases the confidence intervals were wide. The study results cannot therefore rule out an increased incidence at one or more of these sites.

The most recent cancer registration used in this study was for 1989, 24 years after first exposure to dapsone or service in Vietnam. Accordingly, this study cannot detect cancers that may arise at greater latencies after exposure to dapsone or Vietnam service.

Back to top

 





 

Dapsone use in Vietnam


By Noel Benefield

In the search for a new preventative malarial medication it has been claimed that US authorities investigated some 2100 agents, and Dapsone was chosen. Dapsone had been considered during World War II but was discarded as an option. Prior to its use in Vietnam there had been small experimental studies of short duration, and these have been the foundation of the consistent claims by New Zealand and Australian authorities that use in Vietnam was not experimental.

It was in 1968 that the Australians investigated the use of dapsone for the prevention or prophylaxis of malaria. Along with the Americans, the Australians had used a combination of dapsone, pyrimethamine and quinne for the treatment of falciparium malaria. As with that use, the decision to use dapsone as a preventative in a "trial" in conjunction with the existing two tablets of Paludrine, is presented in official histories as a decision taken in Vietnam in response to deteriorating conditions. The Australians did not have a malarial expert in Vietnam at that time. A British Army specialist was sent to conducted an evaluation, and whilst he was convinced that probable reason for the outbreaks of malaria were a result of poor discipline in antimalarial countermeasures, recommended the inclusion of Dapsone, in his evaluation. The involvement of another country's specialist was omitted in the later official history.

The introduction of Dapsone at 25mg daily with 200 mg of Paludrine for all members of the force was on the basis that it had been proven to be effective in suppression after a short trial period. There is no doubt that the inclusion of dapsone to the prophylaxis regime by the Australians dramatically reduced the incidence of malaria amongst Australian and New Zealand troops. But the mechanism for that turn around using dapsone was never adequately explored at that time, which is unfortunate as it can account for some long- term health affects amongst Veterans exposed.

In early 1969, or more probably late 1968 the Americans were having difficulties with their dapsone program, and given the relationship between them and Australian Medical authorities its not surprising that larger numbers in 1969 was taking dapsone. The cohort sizes for the suppression trials were of sufficient size for establishing effectiveness, but for toxicity a large number of people were required. When the decision was made to issue the drug to the whole of the force it would be later revealed that the "boffins" were unhappy with that decision. What they were unhappy about has never been revealed. But it is probably the fact that insufficient evaluation of the potential long-term effects had been carried out.

Years later the regime would remain questionable. The Evatt Commission findings when published, in 1984, claimed that there was no association with herbicides, but they placed a question mark over dapsone. It was in the following year that someone in the New Zealand Director General Medical Services Department formally accused Australian authorities in Vietnam of having conducted an "ad hoc" response to a malarial epidemic. One suspects that this was simply a reaction to the Evatt report designed to lay the blame on the Australians for New Zealand forces use of dapsone. Especially given that the Commission had suggested epidemiology studies. Certainly there is no evidence of an exploration by New Zealand authorities for any untoward long terms effects amongst those exposed.

One problem confronting the Americans was cases of agranulocytosis. Whilst rare they were indicative of something amiss because they were always thought to be associated with high doses of dapsone, as used in leprosy.

Eventually the Australians started to identify cases. The opinion was, when published a year later, that the conditions was "probably due to dapsone" It also quoted a USARV medical consultants report of October 1969. "As everybody knows by now dapsone produces agranulocytosis. This is reversible on stopping the drug". "If infection occurs the prognosis is extremely grave." But the object of the exercise was to explore for life threatening side effects, not their cause, and now that it was proven the drug was restricted to short periods of use. To make sure, the drug was removed from general issue at the store and control passed to 8 Field Ambulance.

What was missed in the analysis by both countries was the true answer. The official history in the Australian Medical Journal of 1973 by an "expert" who had never set foot in Vietnam used the explanation of leprosy specialists he consulted, that the association was unlikely.

The actual hypothesis believed by those involved in design of the regimes was never made available until I requested copies of correspondence in the late 1990's between the Australian and New Zealand DGMS of 1985. It was thought that the dapsone had somehow been degraded by heat when the ship carrying it was held up in the Panama Canal.

Amazingly here were cases of serious life threatening side effects, a product suspected of been implicated, and there is no evidence of any long- term investigations of those exposed.

Factually both "experts" were wrong. The most important comparison was that of the relationship of two different regimes, both with dapsone producing the same outcome. That outcome was the bacterial infections, sadly that killed some of the Americans, after the drug had been discontinued, and was precipitated by lock out of iron when dapsone was used resulting in a myeloperoxidase deficiency where the bacterium were isolated by could not be destroyed
. The iron release effect also occurred during an evaluation of the earlier treatment trials using dapsone, pyrimethamine and quinne, before any consideration of widespread use for preventing malaria was contemplated. There also, after dapsone was discontinued, there were unexplained fevers. There is no indication of a search for the origin of the fevers, causing one to suspect that the success of the regime was more important than a full investigation of all factors. It is probable that in these cases it was re emerging vivax malaria, because like bacteria it enjoys a renewed iron environment. Later circa mid 1969 1st Australian Field Hospital began including iron tablets to be taken in conjunction with dapsone after treatment for malaria. There is no evidence that this practice was adopted with the preventative regime suggesting that the effect was considered a result of the pyrimethamine with dapsone and not dapsone alone. Previously iron deficiency symptoms had been considered a result of inadequate diet.

In explaining the regime at the Evatt Commission one ex Australian DGMS stated it was thought that dapsone amplified Paludrine. Assumptions were a predominant factor in dapsone use in Vietnam. It is true that Paludrine is active against the plasmodium, the agent of malaria, directly, but dapsone did it by a cruder method. Because it had been used in leprosy at higher doses it was assumed that there would be no side effect. It would be decades before it was proven that in leprosy, because of dapsones high affinity, that the side effects differ greatly to those where it is used for other applications.

It would be after Vietnam, that it would be noted in malarial use, that some conditions, permanent in nature, could only be a result of dapsone used for suppression of malaria. In this situation because there is no disease state some of the drug was reconverted from its metabolite, back to the parent drug, resulting in increased quantities within the body from repeated cycling.

The reason the significance of the bacterial infections was not considered was because of a prevailing untested hypothesis that dapsone, because it was related to sulphonimides, it was bactericidal. It would have to wait until after the dawn of a new century for that false assumption to be fully buried.

Another condition, which was discounted by the 1990's Australian AIHW study group, had already been investigated during the Vietnam era. Between September 1968 and January 1969 an investigation was conducted in Australia to determine the incidence of methaemeglobina in soldiers returning from South East Asia. This condition arises from a lack of oxygen transport ability in the blood, and cam be caused by insufficient iron for binding the oxygen. Whilst some of the soldiers were under the short- term treatment regime using dapsone for falciparium malaria, there is no evidence that the investigators were made aware that they had prior dapsone exposure or others on the short- term prophylaxis trial. The degree of methaemeglobina severity varied markedly across the total group.

The conclusion was that soldiers were at risk from the condition, the cause been the Return To Australia regime of Chloroquine and primaquine. But why did Austforce HQ in Saigon, in late December, before this investigation was completed, send a signal to those units in Vietnam, using dapsone to discontinue prior to starting the RTA regime? At the same time the American WRAIR people where conducting this same exercise on personnel in US Aviation units using dapsone, and weekly Chloroquine and primaquine, and obtained the same result. Dapsone and primaquine are synergistic to each other. That is the effects are magnified when both are used together.

The Australian study was not published in the Australian Medical Journal until 1971, by which time dapsone use in Vietnam had been curtailed. If a doctor in general practise had acted on this information, at the time of publishing, he would have been only able to find on a small number of cases that had a genetic predisposition to primaquine toxicity.

A simple cross indexing of known side effects in recent literature on dapsone and those of iron deficiency reveals stark similarities From concave or spotted finger nails to more serious conditions and those with potential long term implications the comparison is outstanding. Of the many lesser symptoms, they were more likely to have been dismissed as representative of active service during the Vietnam period.

But this was not a dose dependant scenario that was the foundation of the AIHW 1992 cancer study. Iron deficiency is a slow manifesting condition that would only became apparent when the drug was withdrawn from the body. By that time many exposed Veterans had returned to Australia or New Zealand. Years after my service, I had a number of discussions with a former Medical Officer who saw New Zealand returnees. He admitted that there were many occasions when diagnosis was unobtainable. I asked him if he had been aware that dapsone had been issued to soldiers, and his reply was he had not.

During many years of research, officialdom has habitually informed me that dapsone was, and is not of concern because it was issued only at 25mg daily and it was used at that time in leprosy at greater doses. All of the official literature suggests a mind set that any effects must be dose dependant. Years after use in Vietnam, in 1990 the Australian Army Tropical Medicine department could not let paludrine and dapsone as a combination go. On this occasion the dose of dapsone was reduced from 25mg to 10mg. again with a short exposure period that suggests the philosophy continued

Could the true implications of dapsone use have been established during use in Vietnam? Remarkably the answer is yes. One of the Australian battalions raised in haste was destined to be a part of the "trial" investigations of 1968, but instead became part of the total cohort when use was expanded. The significance of that battalion was that it had no prior exposure to dapsone, paludrine, malaria, active service or herbicides.
Also one must include the fact that iron tablets were introduced for those on treatment regimes in 1969, which should have prompted further investigation of the preventative regime. That practice also puts in doubt the AIHW study results based on all treatment cases, with or without iron replacement, been considered as the same.

Iron deficiency is amplified by a co-existing folate deficiency. In Vietnam there were many factors that had a potential to reduce the folate pool, ranging from bacterial infections, stress, diet, etc through to folate inhibitors such as paludrine. In fact in some of the cases reviewed by the AIHW they had exhibited symptoms of folate deficiency, but the significance was not recognised.

There are three possible scenarios where dapsone use in Vietnam could be implicated in long-term effects.

The first is an enhancement of folate deficiency. There are recorded cases during service in Vietnam with dapsone use, and there has also been a number of morbidity/mortality studies of Veterans that clearly identify and excess of conditions associated with folate deficiency. Unfortunately none have confounded for dapsone exposure. It should be also noted that folate deficiency can be a factor of aging and may indicated why symptoms previously noted during service, return at a later age.

The second scenario is interference in the biotransformation of other agents to which veterans were exposed. This could have occurred by either insufficient available oxygen for redox detoxification mechanisms, or from a reduction of iron in the liver for primary detoxification. One current anomaly in studies of TCDD and diabetes is its association with exposed Veterans but a non-association with exposed chemical worker populations. Future confounding for dapsone exposure, particular only to Vietnam Veterans, may identify the reason for this anomaly. In fact, recent studies have identified that whilst deficiency of iron does not contribute to type 2 diabetes, iron storage as would have occurred during dapsone use, does in fact initiate the disease.

The third scenario is previously undiagnosed toxic action. In recent years the US Veterans Affairs have accepted an association between motor neurone and dapsone, if the initial diagnosis was identified within two years of exposure. The probable mechanism was free radical formation during biotransformation of the hydroxylamine metabolite. Given that such by-products can also be bound to the red blood cells, and only released on cell destruction, the potential for subtle damage to other organs cannot be discounted.

In conclusion there is evidence that in Vietnam, and after Vietnam, Veterans have presented with conditions that were, directly or indirectly, a result of dapsone exposure.
There is no confirmation available of potential risk, because the few studies conducted have been structured to support the historical dose dependent hypothesis.

 

[ Sign my Guestbook] - [Read my Guestbook ]
[Guestbook by TheGuestBook.com]


HOME PAGE