VVA Agent Orange New Jersey Presentations

WE ARE STILL AT WAR!

AT WAR WITH THE MOST POWERFUL ENEMY WE HAVE EVER FACED

- OUR OWN GOVERNMENT-

To Sin by Silence When We Should Protest Makes Cowards Out of Men

Unfortunately for Veterans/Widows/and Damaged Offspring ... our 40 years of protest and shouts of injustice ... of indeed government complicity to deceive and cheat the United States Vietnam-Era Veteran has fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes of our Presidents and our Elected Officials in Congress.

In the context of how one sided our studies have been; from the Ranch Hand Transcripts themselves on a discussion of how bad the Ranch Hand Reporting is and had been; one scientist stated:  “Christ, we had people walking and swimming in the stuff on the DMZ.”  He was discussing other chemicals NOT just Agent Orange.

The newly appointed leader of the committee then stated:

“Let me just say one thing.  I mean, I think that last point you made is important; that this is not so much a comment on the report, but an opportunity for other research --- potential opportunity.”

We have had our Veterans dying or becoming disabled for greater than 40 years and government funded science is worried about "their future opportunities".

The entire government including Presidents and our Congress seems to be more worried about chemical companies and campaign coffer money and more intent on rewriting Vietnam and other denied chemical sites dioxin history in total; than any concern for those Veterans either killed or disabled by that same government.

When Mike asked me to speak to you he made it clear this was not be a cotton candy presentation as we have had to do in the past when trying to win Congress over on our side.  That is what I intend to present to you today on various topics of what we have faced for over 40 years now; while Congress stood by.

We have not been cowards in this issue.... but we know who the cowards have been.

Opening Statements

On behalf of a "grateful nation" your Executive and Legislative Branches that you served with honor and some with much valor against the Nation's enemies, has elected to put this entire segment of society (Veterans) in a set aside system where the government damaged Veteran, surviving Widow, or damaged offspring has no constitutional right to "constitutional legal" redress.  Your rights to redress and all legal decisions regarding any actual redress is controlled in its entirety by the Executive Branch (The Defendant) supported by the Legislative Branch (Co Defendant).  This set aside legal system "assumes" the highest integrity in legal decisions and Executive Branch/Congressional approved processes and procedures on behalf of that set aside segment of society. 

As most of us have seen and experienced first hand there is no integrity in this system nor does it follow any known legal decision system this nation has ever established.  Even when direct evidence of interference, collusion, and conspiracy to defraud the Veteran or Widow within this system by a federal agency; rather than prosecution, as we have seen recently and in the past, there is amnesty for the guilty; not prosecution for criminal activity against the nations best citizens.  VA has become the untouchable when it comes to breaking laws that would apply to anyone else; other than a Veteran.

(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans.

Subject to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise. (b) The second sentence of subsection (a) does not apply to - (1) matters subject to section 502 of this title; (2) matters covered by sections 1975 and 1984 of this title; (3) matters arising under chapter 37 of this title; and (4) matters covered by chapter 72 of this title.

One can imagine if this title read (a) The appointed federal Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to all civil service employees or the dependents or survivors of civil service employees.

Or insert any other segment of society on your own (automotive manufacture workers; or based on race, creed, religion, or color) and then imagine what would happen.

And oh by the way those decisions, no matter how biased, are final and in accordance with the congressional approved law may not be reviewed by any official or by any court of our land.  I wonder how long that would stand?

If challenged; this so called legal system would clearly violate the separation of powers mandated by our constitution.

Then one has to ask why it is they get away with it for Veterans, which by all definition meets the definition of a segment of society.  Yes a composite or cross section of many but still a unique segment of society.  Maybe even the best segment of society.

There is no justice in any legal system where the Defendant and Co-Defendant make all the rules of evidence allowed and the level of scientific evidence demanded when the Defendant is manipulating the outcomes of tax payer paid for so-called government "gold standard medical studies" done in order to establish health care and compensation decisions.

In a real legitimate court room setting the "value of a positive" is 0.50.  For the Veteran/Widow this "value of a positive is a scientific 0.05"; even with known and identified government interference and stalling in many areas.

Many may not like what I have to say today but... facts are facts and it is time this segment of society realizes this is not the government we thought it was, fought for, and many died for; or is at present truthful when it comes to Veterans Issues.

In 1979 Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein reported a statement by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger...that statement quoted is as follows:

"Military Men are dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."  Many of us think at that time the State Department let the government cat out of the bag as to the real feelings of our government toward supporting the military and its Veterans. 

Truly Veterans are indeed set aside by our government!

Sooner or later we have to admit we have few friends in Congress including our Presidents and even less real advocates within the VA system.

Recently in some areas it seems even the Judicial Branch has turned its back on us. 

Many of you are recipients of valor medals where you risked life and limb to do something extraordinary under extreme and dangerous wartime conditions.  Possibly involving the saving of lives of your brothers in arms.  You were awarded and recognized for that documented efforts by your nation.  Then to have the Judicial Branch rule that some civilian who sent you to do despicable things and would not serve himself could claim that he also did the same thing by the award he fraudulently conveyed he had won in battle... is just wrong.   I believe they said it created no harm.  The harm is degrading all those that won the awards legitimately and making those awards as recognized.... questionable at best. 

I would also comment on the Congressman that alluded many times he had served in Vietnam when he did not.  Yes, he served in the military I guess but to say he was in a combat theatre when was not to me is disgusting.  Much less he had no opportunity to experience the toxic chemical nightmare that followed most of us; not only us for our life but also our offspring with their birth defects.  To me he is just as guilty as the stolen valor issues.

The new Veterans Affairs Secretary admitted he was miffed about why it was he was four decades after the fact still adding additional disorders... clearly stated the reasons he found: 

• A lack of advocacy by VA (which I think still exists today as a government mandate - especially in the old guard management)

• Flawed Science (which also still exists today)

I submit it was and still is just a tad bit more than what he stated.

veterans History Repeats Itself...

Our "Herbicide Issues" of:

• Government denial

• Stalling

• Government interference at the highest levels

• Misstated facts

• Government corrupted and invalid published studies and facts

• Failure to publish facts recommend by study scientist themselves in violation of federal study public law

• Lack of congressional action on our behalf by those that say they support Veterans in election campaigns

• Congressional approval of the use of Veterans as Biological Chemical Warfare (BCW) test subjects

• Department of Defense (DOD) lies, denials, and stalling

• Lack of advocacy by our own federal agency and indeed taking a known and identified adversarial role in denying and stalling claims on behalf of a so called "grateful nation" and its elected officials ...

is not new to only our era issues. 

All of the above is intended to provide a yearly government mandated budget control for Veterans, Widows, and damaged Offspring medical care and compensations and pensions from government mistakes and "poor decisions by our government leadership"; in spite of 5,000 scientific warnings.  This process is intended to cover up the real cost of wars and Department of Defense (DOD) mistakes from the public eye and to provide funding for other vote garnering monies for our legislative branch elected leadership and our presidents.  As well as protect government contractor assets.

This history of government abuse over decades to different era Veterans is obvious in the same patterns of government denial, stalling, interference, and cover-up in:

• Nuclear Testing

• Mustard Gas and biohazards

• LSD testing

• Project 112 and SHAD testing

• Our own Rainbow of Herbicides to include government civilian workers and USO folks

• Korean DMZ veterans and other geographical locations both here and abroad denied associations for decades

• Gulf War Illness as I guess it is called now

• Valid use of Veterans in BCW testing sanctioned by law

• As of late the Radiation our men were exposed to in their service in Japan. (I can guarantee you this will raise its ugly head in denial just as soon as these men start getting sick or dying early and "we need more studies will be the government/VA cry"). 

I will not go into each of these issues as I know you have heard from other Veterans and their widows on how they also were treated by our government and VA.  I do want to cover a couple real quick.

Violation of Public Study Laws...

As most of you know I have been an advocate of all Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) site cancers as established by the American Cancer Society as being associated to not only Agent Orange but many of our Rainbow of Herbicides or as we have seen previously done by Veterans Affairs just "Service in Vietnam Only".  There are already government precedence's set in this issue to include maternal birth defects granted not associated to herbicides but only "Service in Theatre of Operations". 

In fact, we will never know no matter how long the government studies the facts 40 years too late; which chemical created what or which combination of what chemicals created what outcomes and what level of exposures.  That continued hashing of evidence while it does employ a bunch of scientists and program managers seems to be moot at this point. 

We had a bill already that would have mandated Veterans Affairs cover all digestive system cancers as well as pancreatic and liver cancers.  True to their nature of non-support of real "life and death Veteran Issues" and their campaign coffer funds by chemical companies this bill went no where with our elected officials.  In fact, I was told by the sponsors staffer, Congressman Kagen, that this bill was rewritten by our Veteran Service Organizations in DC in order to ensure passing.  This not only delayed the bill to another congress but when I read the new bill even I would not have voted for it the way it was written.   This in my opinion was done on purpose as well as an excuse for those in Congress to stymie this bill or not push it.

I am also an advocate of immune system damages created by our herbicide exposures being associated both clinical and subclinical anomalies still being denied by all parties.  I do not see how cancers are created by a disturbance in the well being of our wonderful adaptive human immune system (B and T cells) and then find that when that cancer maturation created is arrested or directed in confusion elsewhere for whatever reason, more than likely genetics, from developing to a cancer that an immune system dysfunction creating disability and even death is still denied. 

As a side note:  I am still working on a failure analysis of biological functions in Interleukins that I think are created by dioxins and others we were exposed.  This starts with the dioxin created increased levels of IL-04 and IL-10 and further has an effect on immune system confusion as to what type of response and when to respond to what issues.

From what I can decipher and describe in my failure issues dioxin(s) can create both a depleted immune system as well as an inflammatory immune system simultaneously.  This of course becomes a treatment nightmare for the patient and doctor to minimize the attacking damages as well as keep the immune system in some sort of viable defense mechanism; even if minimal at best.

But I will let the National Institute of Health tell me where I am wrong in my analysis if they even bother to look at it.  I personally think they will. Submitting any place else including the EPA and IOM in my opinion would be useless.

One of the problems I have seen in this so called dioxin evaluation for 50 plus years; and this is a sad comment, is the brunt of studies have been spent in proving dioxin created cancer; or that dioxin does not create cancer.  Again; depending on who is behind or paying for the study I have found you do not have to read the study --- you already know the outcome. 

Again I hope to submit my immune system data this year and all my reference material to the National Institute of Health.

Now will we live long enough to get any of these associated by our so-called friends in Congress?  I doubt it.

I will not go into this in detail even though I have written down here to present to you; unless we have time later on and you want to cover it.  Mike said not to make it too technical but I think everyone will readily see why I am concerned if we have time.

{IL - 04 or Interleukin 04 (chemical messengers called cytokines) regulates diverse T and B cell responses including cell proliferation, survival, and gene expression.}

I am particularly interested in dioxin induced excess excretion of IL - 04 as it relates to dioxin exposures and a reduction of IL-12 and Interferon Gamma and how that impacts the immune system towards th1 and th2 immune confusion and many autoimmune disorders to include MS. This analysis also includes the affect on and communication and cross communication with IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-13 and disorders associated.  I hope to finish this analysis and be able to get it submitted to the National Institute of Health this year to demonstrate biological plausibility's in impacts; my health permitting. 

Th1 cells drive the type-1 pathway (“cellular mediated immunity”) to fight viruses and other intracellular pathogens, eliminate cancerous cells, and stimulate delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions. This is for simplification; the cancer and disguised host cell pathogen immune system.

Th2 cells drive the type-2 pathway (“humoral immunity t lymphocytes and b lymphocytes”) and up-regulate antibody production to fight extracellular organisms. This is for simplification; the antibody immune system.

Over activation of either pattern can cause disease, and either pathway can down-regulate the other.

The Th1 pathway is often portrayed as being the more aggressive of the two, and apparently, when it is over reactive, can generate organ-specific autoimmune disease (e.g., arthritis, multiple sclerosis, etc.

The Th2 pathway is seen as underlying allergy and related IgE-based disease, and predisposing to systemic autoimmune disease.

As I have done my research over the last 14 years I have found evidence that there is a correlation to dioxin(s) exposures in increased or high incidence of autoimmune antibodies and related serum immune system findings demonstrating autoimmune conditions.  Some of these findings go back to the 1980's in published journals.  What I also found was in reaching significance it depended on who was funding the study while most found a high incidence in not only Vietnam Veterans but also chemical company workers.

Now in most cases because these accumulated abnormality findings did not reach some standardized ICD code like Lupus, therefore they were just considered testing anomalies; not "signs of things to come".  However, to say that Vietnam Dioxin exposed Veterans could or "shall not" exhibit some form of undefined immune syndrome would be nothing but a false statement in my opinion.  We had the Gulf War Syndrome at first and I guess it is called Gulf War Illness now as they have defined some testing and symptom parameters that correspond to their empirical findings.

From what I can decipher Vietnam Veterans that have these testing anomalies have what I would call a subset of Lupus or similar autoimmune disorder and/or  they have a combination of various autoimmune disorders that the only ICD code that can be associated would be connective tissue disorders (710-739).  This would include 710.9 Connective Tissue Disease Unspecified.  In addition, to the testing anomalies the symptoms vary in severity depending on the individual; no different from many defined autoimmune disorders and a group of or subset of symptoms that vary per individual already in medicine.

Some of the testing anomalies may be but not limited to:

• Constant Increased levels of IgA antibodies

• Constant Increased levels of IgE antibodies

• Decreased levels of IgG1 antibodies

• If they bother to check and run an interleukin test panel it also will demonstrate a defective immune system

• Test positive for celiac in serum but upon biopsy no sign of celiac (four month gluten free diet has no impact in the condition)

• High hs-CRP values either in chronic or acute inflammatory disease phase or the degree of inflammation

• Shift in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) may or may not be a shift in T3 and T4 (clinical versus subclinical)

• Detection of microsomal antibodies against the thyroid if any doctor even bothers to check

• Shift in TSH and  detection of antibodies (should suggest endocrine damages and things to come such as possible Graves)

• Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate ESR; which may wax and wane as the inflammatory condition changes; also too low and two high can point to what part of the body and even the disorder is creating the inflammation.

• Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody or Anti-CCP.. unlike the standard RA test with its false/positive confirms the RA condition in about 95% of patients; If high levels are detected this confirms the inflammatory joint damage potential if not already confirmed by weakness.  This is not the kind of RA that disfigures the joints!

• Higher levels of Natural Killer cells are found

• ANA or high levels of abnormal antibodies can demonstrate that either SLE is at work or any number of immune alterations within the body.  More specific test and evaluations must be made to indentify which of the connective tissue disorders or a combination of dysfunctional immune system is being detected.

• If a bone scan is done the results will be a confirmed loss of bone density.

Several studies have demonstrated these findings as far back as the 1980's in those exposed to dioxins both civilians and Vietnam Veterans and were not (NONE) found in the comparison groups. It seems they were small in nature and did not fit the IOM's standards, what ever they are, since they seemed to decide based on some random process that requires a controlled study like a pharmaceutical trial to some p-value of association must meet 95% confidence.

I have contended all along as well as some scientists that if the government is mandating this 95% along with must meet some linear dose expression to the IOM; then this is all part and parcel to the stalling and denials.  It also as pointed out elsewhere in my presentation that with this scenario many issues that have been found at huge increases (none in the comparison group) are not even looked at and not even brought forward.  Statistical significance is not the way to determine associated issues 40 plus years after the fact.  Common sense and reason is more applicable.  But your Congress has done nothing to change this mandate and again is part and parcel to the White House and Congressional methodology to deny and stall.

In other words for an example:

If a legitimate study finds between non-Vietnam Veterans and Vietnam Veterans in Vasculopathy that in the comparison group .7% and the Vietnam Veterans is found at a 9% across four indentified level of exposures during the snap shot in time from time of exposures.  That alone should raise someone's attention that either Service in Vietnam created the issue or the toxic chemical environment created the issue.  Unfortunately, it did reach the significance required to a single dioxin during this time frame of evaluation or study widow so it is discounted as not an issue.

I submit this should indicate a found disparity and if looked at five years later, if the Vietnam Veterans were still alive, that number would diverge even greater and not converge.  These issues are over life not at the exact same time some study is done.  Having that finding should indicate the divergent will get worse not better and at some point in time will possibly obtain significance.  Of course too late for many as planned by our governments processes and procedures.

I do not think that one soldier cares whether this increase is found to that Service in the toxic chemical environment that was Vietnam or to a single mandated Dioxin.

What is even more incredible is the finding of Vasculopathy increases and then look at Brain Infarction and how it corresponds in the study.  Non-Vietnam Veterans .7% and Vietnam Veterans across the four levels of exposures = 7% found.

Even more damaging is when I read the Ranch Hand transcripts and found them discussing the fact that many of the men either died from stroke early or demonstrated signs of mini-strokes.

Just incredible how science can be distorted to the point of pure nonsense if no one is looking at the overall picture and of course a lack of integrity by our government.

Some of the symptoms may be but not limited to:

• Gastrointestinal problems - (aversion to heavy red meats as well as dairy products) Many of you even from the time you came home and could no longer eat the foods you were brought up on prior to going to Vietnam.

• Signs of Vasculitis or diagnosed Vasculitis

• Joint weakness with pain but no disfigurement

• Some muscle wasting

• Loss of body hair starting at the feet and slowing working its way up

• Chronic daily fatigue worsening to the point of disabling

• Malaise - "general feeling of being unwell" or all is not right.

• Constant or nearly constant infections

• COPD*

• Neuropathy especially painful sensory

• Constant low grade fever

• Having to change jobs due to the conditions will not allow you to continue in your former employment

• Having to cut down the number of hours you can work do to the immune system dysfunctions - ICD coded or not

• Red and white blood cells count issues

• Signs of personality changes or anxiety issues

• Skin disorders to include sunlight sensitivity

• Constant clearing of throat or coughing bringing up a white sticky mucous (maybe worse at night and the morning time frames)

• Last but not least is you may feel an electrolyte imbalance and crave salty items or forms of food like mustard or the like and yes even pickles and you will actually feel better..  Now this may take place even though you have not exercised to the point of losing the value of electrolyte functions in creating the level of charges so the cells can communicate.  Dioxin is well known as an endocrine disrupter and these electrolyte levels are very tightly controlled by several hormones and of course the kidneys.  They are also a very important function part of all organs including muscle movement and coordination.  Maybe associated with the malaise feelings, at least in my pea brain.

* COPD - This one is ironic that VA's own dioxin study found this associated.  Published by Reuters Health as well as the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Nov 2006.  Apparently either the VA itself does not believe VA's Dr. Kangs study, the IOM certainly did not find it valid or they are ignoring it; your friends in Congress and our Presidents do not want to cover COPD; or all of it.  It should also be noted that this VA study found an association to hepatitis for Service in Vietnam and not necessarily the herbicides.  Still we have no service connection for hepatitis.

Yet, we still have no automatic presumption even though the evidence clearly shows significance to all non-cancer lung issues by the governments own study.

After we are all dead and gone I truly believe that dioxin and its various compounds will be found to mimic any outcome and testing anomaly that a virus can produce very similar to the Epstein Barr Virus.  Then the government will say gee we had no idea.  Now who else wants to sign up and cash that blank check so we can stay in power in DC.

Failure to publish study facts

The 12 year head scientist for Ranch Hand, Dr. Michalek, when he discovered several anomalies and confounding factors within the Ranch Hand Study and on his own, pro-bono, went back and revaluated the statistical issues and found and published a report.  (Diabetes and Cancer in Veterans of Operation Ranch Hand After adjustment for Calendar Period, Days of Spraying, and Time Spent in Southeast Asia)

Dr. Michalek co-authored two studies in fact that were published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2004 and 2005 that found significant all site cancer rates in Ranch Handers.

This study concluded a greater association to diabetes than previously thought; as well as a significant trend of increased all-site SEER cancer risk; even with several assumptions that I and others have suggested were subjective, speculative, and only a best tainted guess in cohort non-exposure assumptions, cut-off points, and that a linear expression for dioxin exists in humans.  Still a greater association was found to both with at least a two fold increase in all cancer sites.  Considering many of these men died from cardiovascular issues early on (finally approved recently after years of government lies) and did not live long enough to develop cancers; this increase number is at very best a minimum number of increased ratios to the normal population.

There are many such studies that have concluded the same thing but I want to cite one here done by Emory University using quantitative risk assessment for low level exposures that I thought was particularly valid since it only did civilian exposures from the single dioxin, TCDD.  The same conclusions were discovered.  This study compared 3,538 workers exposed with the highest estimated TCDD levels at 418 part per trillion - not parts per million and concluded:

• By mathematical modeling a threshold model did not fit well suggesting there was no level of exposure below which there was no or zero cancer risk.

• Little indication that any particular cancer site was elevated compared to other cancer sites. 

• Asbestos and the like are associated to some cancers but not all.  Suggested since dioxin interferes with Ah cell receptors and occurs throughout the entire body in all systems the first true all site carcinogen may account for the little difference in specific site cancers versus all cancers as it relates to the dioxin, TCDD.

Our issues are not based on solely the dioxin, TCDD but of course our government has made it so.  We had a whole plethora of toxic chemical exposure and because of the half life in the body of some of these toxic chemicals they must be considered simultaneous exposures not one and then one but one plus one which exponentially expands the outcomes and confuses the dose rates required (which is speculative at best at this time) or synergy effect of two or more toxic chemicals.

For example in Agent Blue or Cacodylic Acid or Arsenic Acid

"Cacodylic acid is highly toxic by ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact. Once thought to be a byproduct of inorganic arsenic detoxification, it is now believed to have serious health consequences of its own. It has been shown to be teratogenic in rodents, most often causing cleft palate but also fetal fatality at high doses. It has been shown to be genotoxic in human cells, causing apoptosis and also decreased DNA production and shorter DNA strands. While not itself a strong  carcinogen, cacodylic acid does promote tumors in the presence of carcinogens in organs such as the kidneys and liver."

NOTE:  A review published in 2010 identified 6 main teratogenic mechanisms associated with medication use: folate antagonism, neural crest cell disruption, endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, vascular disruption and specific receptor- or enzyme-mediated teratogenesis.

NOTE: Excessive apoptosis causes atrophy, such as in ischemic damage, whereas an insufficient amount results in uncontrolled cell proliferation, such as cancer.

One can readily see if the Veteran was exposed to the dioxin, TCDD one of the most if not the most carcinogenic of man made toxic chemicals, and then later on or before is exposed to Agent Blue his or her medical issues may be outside the realm of a dioxin, TCDD only; or synergy.  Therefore, for our government to look at only the Dioxin, TCDD studies and outcomes is spurious at best.  In fact, the Ranch Hand study started out looking at the whole spectrum (The Vietnam Experience) and then was government filtered to a single dioxin only. 

When one looks at the factors affecting toxicity and outcomes you can readily see how varying outcomes can be protracted into studies that show no outcomes if these issues are not factored in the study comparisons:

• Rate of entry

• Route of entry or multiple routes of entry

• Previous exposures to the same chemical or other known toxic chemicals and that rate and route of entry

• Genetic predisposing to certain outcomes

• Temperature at time of exposures

In the case of dioxins in particular:

• liver size

• Detox liver enzyme efficiency

• Body fat content at time of exposures

• Liver parameters and body fat content above versus dose over time; or total dose at one time; or multiple low level exposures at different intervals makes a difference in outcomes

I say the last one based on quoted issues by one of about five only scientists I; and I think "we" actually can trust in our issues.  Certainly government scientists in general trying to prove preconceived and mandated government outcomes are not to be trusted.

"At higher levels in the body, the liver holds much more of the dioxin than it does at lower concentrations.  So, at lower doses, relatively more of the dioxin gets to other tissues than at higher concentrations."

Let me add another issue in this mass of confusion regarding toxic chemicals used in Vietnam as a what if:  Recently it was suggested that Arsenic Acid in drinking water was creating an increase in Diabetes Type II in the civilian population.  Now did the Dioxin create an increase in diabetes or did Agent Blue.  Since the spotlight was forced only on to the single dioxin compound, TCDD; I can find no evidence of exclusionary testing and yes I would agree in some cases 30 years after the fact it would be impossible to detect some toxic chemicals.  Never the less the facts are in most cases of exposure areas there was more than just the one dioxin.  Then could it be that yes the one dioxin, TCDD remained in the body fat content but was just a coincidence in the findings.  I do not know and I would suggest our government does not really know, nor does science. If cacodylic acid is genotoxic interfering with programmed cell death the wrong way it also results in uncontrolled cell proliferation such as cancers.

What I am trying to point out here is; we Veterans and Science will never know what caused what or what combination of what created what outcomes to some p- value of 0.050;..... much less come up with some linear dose rate scale to the dioxin, TCDD only; that covers all outcomes.  In spite of the complaints by Senators Webb, Akaka, Sanders (a hypocrite), Burr and others recently in our latest additions.   There were just too many toxic chemicals and combinations of toxic chemicals to study one and one toxic chemicals and then deny the Veterans what we know are empirical data outcomes.  What we can conclude is:  "It is at least as likely as not the toxic chemicals (plural) exposures are associated to the issues while in Service; in which we are supposed to win by congressional decree.  But as you know this also has never happened and Congress has never made sure it did in Oversight.

But this is what our government does to its Veterans..... and placating words of praise twice a year do not change that fact.

In its meeting on 19 November 2004 the Ranch Hand Committee Scientists, representing both the government as well as stakeholders, voted 100% to include this new diabetes and cancer data and facts in the published Ranch Hand Reports. 

• This data and facts were intentionally left out of the final published Ranch Hand Reports by the Air Force regarding its health study of personnel.  Identified by many world wide as the supposed "Gold Standard Study on Dioxin" is reduced to government interference, lack of integrity, changing outcomes, and refusing to publish found facts.  Our Congress still does nothing!

• When the Air Force was confronted Dr. Michalek indicated the Air Force told him to "destroy the evidence".

• The final report released in July of 2005 qualifies as "bad science".  In other words a government exoneration tool was created and paid for by the taxpayers to the tune of greater than $140 million dollars over a 25 year period.

• Established scientific standards were circumvented by omitting this data and facts and meets the definition established by federal guidelines of "scientific research misconduct".  In other words "scientific fraud by our own government"; once again.

{42 CFR Part 93 - Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.}

NOTE;  {Veterans Health Administration Research Misconduct (Handbook 1058.2) is almost identical to the above.}

One can readily see had these findings been published in Ranch Hand that our bill to cover "all cancer sites" as associated would have had even greater credence given Congressman Kagen (Wisconsin) would have written the bill appropriately.

The really sad part here is I have seen and found referenced by scientist in trying to side with the chemical companies citing this fraudulent Ranch Hand Report that no cancer increase was found in any cancers as well as no finding of increased diabetes. 

Thereby, citing a United States Government lie perpetuated by our friends in Congress to further their own positions. 

Government Interference at the Highest Levels...

From the very beginning on day one there has been government interference in this issue.

STATE DEPARTMENT 

• State Department Interference

• 1969 study and statements were bogus

State Department Representatives concluded after a visit to Vietnam in 1969 that Agent Orange posed no threat but Agent Blue with its Arsenic Acid might be a potential problem.

CDC

Tiring of VA dragging its feet for years on a congressional mandated study...Congress then assigned the study to be done by the CDC to the tune of another 63 million dollars.

• CDC Level Studies; a scientific joke

• House Report 101-672 "The Agent Orange Cover-up: A Case of Flawed Science and Political Manipulation"

• 101-672 charged White House interference by the Reagan White House as they had made the decision not to pay for previous administrations massive mistakes and environmental damages.

The Reagan White House of course denied involvement in tainting and indeed cancelling the studies. 

Shortly after the denial Admiral Zumwalt found the infamous memo to all federal agencies by the Reagan/Bush White House out of the White House Bureau of Budget (now the OMB).

Memo suggested to all federal agencies not to find an association to the Herbicide Issues and Veterans Medical Issues because of two reasons:

• The cost of supporting Veterans

• The money that would be incurred by the chemical companies

No investigation took place of course as to how this memo got sent to all federal agencies. Since I know for a fact Admiral Zumwalt made this memo available to congress in his testimony and they did nothing; I guess we must assume someone once again in the Bureau of Budget (OMB) acted on his own with no management supervision or direction who had some personal vendetta against Vietnam Veterans in general put out this memo.

As Admiral Zumwalt reported: As early as 1986, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce documented how untutored officials of the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) interfered with and second-guessed the professional judgments of agency scientists and multidisciplinary panels of outside peer review experts effectively to alter or forestall CDC research on the effects of Agent Orange, primarily on the grounds that "enough" dioxin research had already been done.  These Agent Orange Hearings revealed additional examples of political interference in the CDC Agent Orange projects by members of the White House Agent Orange Working Group.

Once again we have bean counter interference out of the White House OMB interfering with science; but of course the White House was not involved.  More personal vendettas by individuals within the OMB I guess.

The CDC level studies were more full of why they could not do a study for four years rather than doing a study.

• Using questionable blood serum analysis

• Could not establish an exposure index because troop movement records were not available.

This on a personal note is just bogus.  I took the quarterly reports of my entire battalion for six years in theatre to get the names of the individuals and what battery they were in.  Then I took our Battalion Operational Reports by Quarter and could plot within a grid of where any one soldier was by battery and even two gun platoon displacements at any given time during that six year period my unit was operational in country.  Oh by the way no one paid me 63 million dollars! 

The data was available; they were just not going to do the study because the government (White House) really did not want it done.

• Operational Ranch Hand spray records were unusable.  Columbia University and Dr. Stellman proved that wrong.

While Ranch Hand may have been the massive amount of herbicides sprayed we must remember we had local applications as well.  In fact, these local applications may have been more hazardous or more toxic than the Ranch Hand missions.  While yes, we had some MOS's that were trained in applications from tankers or individual tank applications on our perimeters we also had 0311's or 11 Bravo's detailed to not only mix the chemicals but do the applications as well with no training at all.  To these men it was no different from filling sandbags or stringing wire; it was just another detail to accomplish.  Paul Sutton recently sent me a picture of what looked like an APC outfitted with sprayers and spraying the herbicides.  There was more than just OPERATION Ranch Hand applications.

The bottom line with the CDC studies even Dr. Philip Landrigan, the former Director of the Environmental Hazards branch at the CDC, upon discovering the various irregularities in CDC procedures concluded that the errors were so egregious as to warrant an independent investigation not only of the methodology employed by the CDC in its validation study, but also a specific inquiry into what actually transpired at the Center for Environmental Health of the CDC.

Of course your friends in Congress did nothing!

EPA

• Interference at the EPA to include suspension for those scientists that actually told the facts and uncovered the fraudulent chemical company studies in a court of law and demanded EPA enforcement.  Fraudulent chemical company studies were used by the government to deny any issues were a result of exposures.  Yet, when proven they were fraudulent.... the White House and Congress silence was deafening.

• Studies by EPA scientists that found holes in the chemical company data were shelved by White House Intervention as far back as 1979.

• This shelved study became SOME of what was published in the 1994 EPA dioxin reassessment 15 years after the fact; while Veterans died or became disabled.  How nice is that?????

Early on it seemed our EPA in its infancy in this issue was being run by chemical company scientists and not independent EPA scientists. From what I can research they even took over the meetings.  Now in setting the stage and not trying to make excuses here; the EPA was in its infancy as a federal agency.  Within two years of origination they had banned the use of DDT and in 1979 I think it was banned the use of Agent Orange.  Ironic it was banned for use in this nation while the rest of our government contended that no harm had been inflicted on our Veterans or environmental damages.

Congress rants and raves about the Geneva Convention when it suits them politically and yet when one looks at the Geneva Convention and its complete articles and as we now know long term environmental damages were done.  Yet they will not admit that fact.

Again to their credit regarding the DOW proprietary chemical PICLORAM used in Agent White; EPA around 1985 demanded a reduction in Hexachlorobenzene as well as Nitrosamines in order to re-qualify PICLORAM. 

Hexachlorobenzene is more likely to have caused the porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) in our Veterans than any form of dioxin.  Yet, we have it on our Agent Orange presumptive list which shows our skewed our own government has made our science.  Hexachlorobenzene itself is notorious for producing particularly PCT as well as other medical issues including tumors. 

For example:

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that the substance may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that Hexachlorobenzene is possibly carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined that Hexachlorobenzene is a probable human carcinogen."

I say this based on more logic.  As you know the VA put time limits of manifestation and time limits of resolution on PCT.  Therefore, it would be improbable to conclude that dioxin with its body half life and less than stellar immediate manifestations would be involved in PCT.  In addition, I do not think we had Veterans developing PCT years after the fact as in dioxin induced biological changes of many other issues.

Also I found this in the mealy mouth statements by our science in stating not just dioxins but in the herbicides used was associated to PCT.  Lord knows we would not want to bring in another known toxic chemical into the mix; so choose your words carefully.

Example:

Strength of Evidence in Epidemiological Studies

"Evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a positive association between exposures to herbicides 2.4.-D; 2.4.5-T and its contaminant TCDD; Cacodylic Acid; and Picloram and PCT in genetically susceptible individuals.  In other words take your pick as to causation."  Yet, VA has put the target directly on Agent Orange.

Contrast that statement with what IOM is doing in denying associations based on dioxin, TCDD only.

In other words, the Veteran who developed PCT within one year of exposure was either genetically susceptible to PCT or he got one hell of a dose of something.  That something was more than likely Hexachlorobenzene and would have received massive amounts of the other chemicals to create the disorder; if not genetically predisposed to PCT.

Compounds like nitrosamines are used as rust inhibitors on metal surfaces and was also used in Picloram.  From what I can found out about 90% of these compounds are also considered to be carcinogenic. 

As many Veterans found out these drums of chemicals were found rusted and leaking.  I would think this points to the fact that the nitrosamine rust inhibitor effects were not lasting as long as the corrosive properties of the toxic chemical itself.

Now this was a simple task for DOW to reduce on the rust inhibitors. As I recall the metal cans even in retail stores were pulled and replaced with plastic containers as the plastic industry blossomed in the mid 1980's.  Therefore, at some point in time it is doubtful that PICLORAM used in generic herbicides contained any Nitrosamines.  There would be no requirement with the exception of usage in metal sprayers.  Then the problem lies with the user and owner to clean out the corrosive left over product.

The real problem lies in the fact that we have no idea of the level of Hexachlorobenzene used or the level of rust inhibitors used at the time in question for science to evaluate.

As I understand the facts; for each gallon of Agent Orange (dioxin, TCDD) used there was a gallon of Agent White (dioxin 2.4-D) mixed as well.  In addition, Agent White with its PICLORAM as well was used by itself by the hundreds of thousands of gallons.  However, since the Vietnam Veterans studies have been focused (mandated) by the White House to only look at the dioxin, TCDD we must assume that dioxin 2.4-D and PICLORAM poses no threat to the health of those exposed and indeed the entire civilian population.  Based on what the government has done in our issues that would be a logical statement and conclusion. 

I personally believe there are independent toxicology scientists; as well as within the EPA and NIH that would argue vehemently against that logical conclusion.  A conclusion reached and based on government actions to minimize the damages and of course cost of supporting the sick and dying Veterans and their family.

When one looks at 2.4-D conclusions you find organizations lining up on each side of the equation as to the carcinogenic properties of the chemical.  I did find a study done in 2000 in studying 1517 former DOW workers that concluded a significant increase in mortality from ALS.  Also it seems a study done in 1990 on Nebraska farmers that concluded substantially increased the risk of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

In 1992 the EPA came out with at least some semblance of the real facts when it comes to dioxins.  Then of course we had good science creating bad science depending on who is paying for the preconceived notions refuting the EPA statements and facts. 

I can tell you this; I personally was just ecstatic over EPA's conclusions in their 1992 preliminary reassessment and later the 1994 release based on testing and real evidence.  Then the assassin scientists got involved and we are still to this day debating many issues they had concluded based on the testing done at EPA and correlation to human biology over a decade ago.   I was particularly proud of their statements regarding the dose required for a cancer versus an autoimmune disorder which paralleled what I had concluded and clearly concluded that more Veterans should have autoimmune issues, ICD coded or not, than cancers.  I submit that is a true statement.  Science cannot have it both ways unless the United States Government gets involved in rewriting our science history.

VA

Then we have the ultimate in pouring salt in our wounds in adversarial White House mandated denials by our own so called Advocacy Federal Agency; our own Veterans Affairs.

Veterans Affairs primary goal and objectives early on was distancing any associations to the herbicides and the Veterans death or illness.  They took a proactive role in this denial and cover-ups.

Yes, some VA workers with integrity did believe us and actually looked at maps and even contacted the chemical companies.  Of course VA management told them to cease and desist.  According to VA their stand was...dioxins had harmed no one.

• Veterans Affairs met behind closed doors with the tag team of an Air Force scientist and DOW Medical Director (Dr. Walter Melvin - scientific director for the Air Force and Dr. Ben Holder medical director for DOW Chemical.)  Lets see;  the one that made the stuff and the one that approved and delivered the stuff certainly should be our medical judges.  I wonder in any real court how long that would stand.

• Later both given positions and projects within VA for their denials of association. (Folks do not know about you but this does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling that any integrity took place here.)

Given VA positions and projects one would have to assume for their denials; and yet according to Liane C. Casten and her unpublished works called Patterns of Secrecy: Dioxin and Agent Orange (1990)... Dr. Holder clearly stated in 1964 extreme exposure to dioxins could result in "general organ toxicity" as well as "psychopathological" and "other systemic" problems.  Let's see could "psychopathological" problems be considered the same symptoms as PTSD symptoms of returning Veterans?????? 

I believe the number one rule of differential diagnosis in DSM IV in mental disorders is to verify if an outside source is the causation; such as alcohol or drug abuse as well as environmental toxic issues.  Has VA ever done this?  They check for drugs or alcohol but not for environmental toxic screening and as we have come to realize there probably is no more severe and wide spread environmental hazard than dioxins including neuro-physiological disorders at this point.

See L. Casten, Patterns of Secrecy: Dioxin and Agent Orange (1990) (unpublished manuscript detailing the efforts of government and industry to obscure the serious health consequences of exposure to dioxin).

Liane C. Casten, Environmental Task Force Chair of Chicago Media Watch.

One of the problems I see in Dr. Holders statement is the definition of what constitutes "extreme exposures".

Another problem in his statement is I do not believe the test and measurement equipment in 1964 was good enough to even measure down to the minimum levels where one might see these systemic organ damages and mental issues dioxin created and by default were defined at a misleading higher dose rate; even if DOW were honest.

VA's own Dr. Kang study of Army Chemical Corps workers found COPD and other issues statistically significant at 95% to dioxin; as well as hepatitis was associated to Service in Vietnam.  Yet, still we have no coverage for hepatitis associated to that service in Vietnam thanks to our friends in Congress who will not act.

Even the biased media reported this finding regarding Dr. Kang's study:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health)

"The researchers analyzed the effects of Vietnam service and herbicide exposure separately, and found that hepatitis was the only health problem linked to serving in Vietnam per se."   Is hepatitis associated to service in Vietnam at present by VA???  The answer is no.  WHY?

...exposure to herbicides among Vietnam veterans conferred a 50 percent increased risk of diabetes, a 52 percent greater heart disease risk, a 32 percent increased risk of hypertension and a 60 percent greater likelihood of having a chronic respiratory problem such as emphysema or asthma.

I would conclude that chronic respiratory problem such as emphysema or asthma could be classified as COPD or non-malignant lung disease which is how Dr. Kang stated the finding in his study report.

So the disorder found at a 60% more likelihood by VA's own study as associated to herbicide exposure is not covered but those with lesser likelihood listed above are already covered with the recent addition of hypertension and heart disease after years of lies.  The disorder found more likely to have an effect is not.  How does one explain this disparity?  Costs is the only explanation or they do not believe their own sanctioned study and findings.  Where are our so-called friends in Congress on this matter.  SILENT

Also not reported in this finding by VA's own Dr. Kang was an statistical increase in "current health is poor" which mirrored the level of COPD.  To include a finding of health limits the kind of work and amount of work the exposed Veteran can accomplish.  I would suggest this is all part and parcel to the issues I discussed above in what I would call a syndrome of symptoms to include disabling fatigue.  Of which, by the way, was found in the first Ranch Hand Draft of chronic daily debilitating fatigue back in the 1980's.

As in Ranch Hand I considered the comparison cohort selection flawed to begin with and told the IOM that fact.  A decade after I was proven correct when they admitted that just under half of the comparison group supposedly non-exposed; where indeed exposed. 

When the IOM suggested that a study be done of Army Chemical Corps workers what did VA do?  Rather than compare workers to non-exposed Veterans for significance of findings they compared sprayers that served in Vietnam versus sprayers that sprayed elsewhere.  I doubt this is what the IOM had in mind but with them I have my doubts in what they do and how they do it. I would like to think they wanted an exposed versus non-exposed or clean Veterans to see what the increases where in medical issues and how significant.  This is like comparing a group with cancers and then another group with cancers and saying gee we found no significant difference in all cancers.

Like having a two story building where both floor personnel are getting sick.  Then find out there was exposures to something that was being introduced thru the air handler system.

If you compared that finding to the identical building next door that would give you increases in outcomes and significance from that exposure.  Our government would compare the exposed  building first floor and the exposed second floor and then say see the exposure did not cause it everyone is sick!  We found no difference.

In addition, I see multiple problems in comparing those that sprayed in Vietnam in a combat environment versus those that sprayed elsewhere to include:

• Were the same procedures followed considering the combat environment versus civilian environment?

• Was the same equipment used in the combat environment versus the civilian environment?

• Were they getting the same toxicity chemicals from the same manufactures?

• How much of what was sprayed and was it comparative at all?

• How many days of exposures, which makes a difference, to what chemicals between the two groups and was that comparative?

In one of the last Affairs Committee meetings in the House it was suggested that another "so-called final study be done" of only Vietnam Veterans and see how that compares with the general population.   Exactly what I am saying here but it should have been done 30 years ago and not compare Vietnam Veterans to Vietnam Veterans or sprayers that sprayed in Nam and those sprayers that did not serve in Nam.  Again this whole thing has been part and parcel to Government  Stalling.

I know you will hear or have heard some issues on Birth Defects from others and I am not going to cover that per say.  I did want to point out the following.

Dow Chemical Company, the primary manufacturer of 2,45-T and 2,4-D, denied Teratogenicity.  However, according to J. McCullough, Herbicides: Environmental Health Effects: Vietnam and the Geneva Protocol: Developments During 1979, 13 (1970) Dow’s own tests confirmed that when dioxin was present in quantities exceeding production specifications, birth defects did occur.

Let's see...when dioxin was present in quantities exceeding production specifications, birth defects did occur. 

What production specifications and what levels?  No one seems to know and DOW is not going to admit to the values they considered in this statement.

Now in that context; in statements by Dr. Clary "When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960’s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the ‘military formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the ‘civilian’ version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy’, none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide.

..So what production specifications are being discussed military or civilian as ..when dioxin was present in quantities exceeding production specifications, birth defects did occur.  Who knows and all we get are lies.

As I understand it the military went to DOW and said due to the massive amount of chemicals needed for Southeast Asia and we need to reduce cost; can you increase production.  The answer was yes we can but that will mean more dioxin in the formula.  As far as I can tell DOW actually told the military there would be a higher concentration of dioxin due to the process changes required.  In other words, a formula that had never been tested or characterized via testing not even on rats and yet it was OK to use on the Veterans and in the environment in general.

Yes, the chemical companies lied and misstated facts even on the civilian formula but with regard to this matter of increased toxicity this falls directly on the DOD and our government as to who allowed the toxicity increase and potency even higher with no testing at all - that my friend is on their head.

The reason why I bring this up in my presentation is using that same statement... DOWS own tests confirmed that when dioxin was present in quantities exceeding production specifications, birth defects did occur.  Then what else did they know in other medical issues if dioxin quantities exceeded production they found what increased...  We will never know what they found in civilian versus militarized versions.  Not until the tag team of lies by government and chemical companies is broken up. 

A statement I found regarding birth defects associated to Agent Orange in the 2000 transcripts I want to pass on was:

"According to Jacqueline Veret of the FDA, it is ``100,000 times more potent than thalidomide as a cause of birth defects in some species.'' 

Folks that is what I call potent considering the birth defects associated to thalidomide in the 50's - 60's time frame; especially in skeletal birth defects.

VA management took an active role in debunking the associations and science; an active role of bias against the Veterans who served. Example:

At the 5th International  Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and related compounds in September of 1985 VA's own Director, Office of Environmental Medicine, Veterans Health Services and Research Administration,  claims that TCDD ‘presents no threat from the exposures experienced by the veterans and the public at large," and virtually accuses scientists who find that such health effects do exist to be nothing more than witch doctors.  I think we know who the witch doctor really was.

Now contrast this Veterans bias with the governments treatment of civilians for the exact same toxic chemical in lesser exposures.

Remembering that denials of any associations or concern by our government for our issues had continued since the end of our war.

On December 23, 1982, what is now called “The Christmas Message was sent to Times Beach, MO.”  “If you are in town it is advisable for you to leave and if your are out of town, do not go back.”  The whole town of Times Beach, MO was evacuated at 2 ppb (parts per billion).  Pooled stocks would have an estimated average TCDD concentration of 1.9 ppm.

Later on the entire town of 801 homes was purchased by the government.

Yet; the Director, Office of Environmental Medicine, Veterans Health Services and Research Administration and our entire government was still touting no damages in 1985 with regard to Vietnam Veterans. 

The same data was available in both issues and maybe someday someone can explain this government injustice to me in a way my pea brain can absorb these facts; other than the dollar value.

Veterans Affairs Committee on Environmental Hazards (VACEH)

Here is a committee that operated from 1979-1991 that was supposed to review the facts and make recommendations for service connected medical treatment and compensations as it related to Agent Orange.

When finally prestigious research groups and individuals reviewed their process the following was charged:

• Some of the committee was suspect in having prior affiliations with the chemical companies themselves

• Some of the committee had publicly stated preconceived notions of no harm was done

• That nothing the committee had done should be used for anything much less medical care and compensation decisions; having little or no scientific merit

Yet, this committee operated for 12 years while we waited for decisions in medical care and compensations.

However, as biased as they were even they could not deny the existence of Peripheral Neuropathy as associated.  More on that later in Ranch Hand.

NAS/IOM 1991 - Present

Oil and Water do not Mix and Neither does Politics/Politicians and Science.

Statistics to some  p = 0.050 or a 95% confidence level like we had a whole warehouse of Veterans to test to destruction in a controlled situation and protocols  is not the way you award medical care and compensations in our issue (according to testimony) considering the number of chemicals; 15 also according to testimony. Using single dioxin studies in order to deny exposures or the "Vietnam Experience" to many is not what I would call sound scientific reasoning unless your goal it to deny or stall and cherry pick.  And oh by the way VA's USC 38 has this same 95% confidence level.  However, it does allow the Secretary to look at issues that have not met the 95% confidence level and conclude that the disorder in question is associated.  If we have data that shows 5x increase but science cannot pin it down to 95% based on existing science or existing tainted studies then to continue to deny is nothing but a government lie.

For a number of years I tried to find out the inner workings of the IOM AO Committee to at least be able to see if what they were doing made sense and also what if any influence did IOM management and indeed government/VA have in the decision making policy of the IOM.  Since DOD is one of their major customers I felt like we as stakeholders had that right to exam how we are being scientifically judged.  I failed.

In 2000 when Ranch Hand was undergoing a pitiful congressional oversight exam, which I concluded is a prime example of "no one really cares" at least those in congress; I found the IOM AO Committee Chairman aloof, noncommittal to anything or any question, and quite frankly biased against the Veterans and any kind of sane process.  When asked specific questions about this 95% confidence and whether it was doable or acceptable with known science he just  started playing chess; as the Congressman asking the questions concluded.  No matter how the congressman asked the question he did the old Kabuki dance two step.

Of course then the VA spoke up in a rescue attempt and said they had approved everything the IOM had recommended.  So what?  That was not the issue in question.

Yes; I and we all should get suspicious when a chairperson who is responsible for our recommendations or "our scientific jury" via congress will not answer direct questions.

I attended and presented at several of the disability commission meetings both in DC and in a satellite meeting in Atlanta.  I was not impressed and had to fight several issue on my own.

Once again I found in one meeting the IOM came in and quite frankly just mislead the commissioners in a direct question.  I had presented to the commission the day before and submitted over 500 pages of evidence.  To my complete surprise one of the commissioners read some that night and was ready to ask questions regarding the issues.   When he asked the the IOM manager a direct question he answered totally out of context and misstated the facts as if some IOM scientists had done the work and that was all the involvement they had in reviewing the gathered Ranch Hand data.  I contacted that scientist as soon as I got home and their answer was I NEVER DID that as part of an IOM review.  I indicated I knew that but wanted you to know the IOM manager was using your name as part of the IOM process and that you were involved in that process of review.

Again this made me think we cannot trust the IOM and its membership without knowing exactly how we are being judged and the processes used.  We have the right to challenge that process if it is outside the realm of current science itself.

Later on after I had raised such an issue about this the commission finally asked just how the IOM did whatever they did.  They came out with some fancy book which I guess tells some of it on how they do whatever it is and some of definitions they use.  I still did not find how they made a darn decision and if that process is documented anywhere.  I hope it is not just sitting around voting by a show of hands on what classification to put on what disorder/disease.

Again in one of the most important disability commission meetings on this issue as to how we are being scientifically judged not one VSO was in attendance and it left me there along with Fred Kersh fighting for our rights to know how we are being judged by our scientific jury.  When I asked; well that describes the process you are using now and here forward but what about the last 14 years.  The answer was; they did not want to discuss it.

So the stakeholder; and I was representing everyone of you at the time, is not entitled to know how science judges us in that toxic chemicals environment.

And the term causal keep coming and up and I insisted that was not needed since we do not know what causes cancer and immune system dysfunction as of yet after 200 plus years.  Therefore; to keep demanding a causal effect was again not the way you determine health care and compensation decisions.  Certainly not the way you treat exposures, to by testimony remember at least 15 different chemicals, and then demand causation to only one.

As many of you know the IOM is contracted to make decisions every two years on their recommendations. 

Lets assume that two days into the new two year contract they find an association - but by contract they do not have to recommend for at least another two years.  Normally late in their recommendations we could be at least 26 months waiting on a found associated disorder.  Recently we have seen that VA then has to review that recommendation which can take up to 9 more months.  The if they decide to make it presumptive another 6 months to get all the paper work done through all the bureaucratic BS that is our government.  IOM knows they are going to recommend an issue as presumptive and here we 41 months into the process and those that are dying and disabled are still being denied.  Then let's add at least 6 months to get the claim adjudicated and that is probably the very minimum by VA and now you are up to 47 months before the Veteran can even get his disability/death service connected even at 0 %; much less get the possible compensations that are involved.  Meanwhile the Veteran and family have been subsidizing the entire United States Government with their life long worked for assets.  Die before that claim is adjudicated and the family subsidizing our own government for what they did gets zero dollars.

Probably not a good thing for the Veteran with a mortality issue or a Disabled Veteran losing his or her home; but it sure makes a difference to Congress in their bottom line expenditures for their government mistakes.

I called the IOM in 2001 and told them this Ranch Hand study and its protocol was flawed for several reasons.  I was told no do not worry everything was on the up and up.  I was later vindicated years later when several of the "principal scientists" concluded upon realizing what I was concerned about in the cohort selection also concluded the study was useless that fatally flawed errors of assumptions had been made.  Another 140 million dollars wasted but it bought them 25 years of denials, waiting on more deaths, which was the intent of both branches of government to begin with; to include both political parties.

Lack of Scientific Integrity...

The professors at John Hopkins published an article on "how good science can create bad science" in the form of challenges and delays depending on stakeholders and political intervention.

Quotes:

• "But interested parties have used the "sound science" mantle to demand extended research, analysis, and review of evidence for the sole purpose of delaying health-protective regulation.

•  "Certain "sound science" regulatory tools can be used to improve decision quality. However, these tools can also challenge the federal government’s ability to safeguard the public’s health and well-being. Most recently, political tampering with science provides the foundation for some policymakers to disregard science completely in the environmental regulatory process."

By the way the example the good doctors at John Hopkins used in their publication was the dioxin issues.  Imagine THAT!

And yes in this issue we have had political interference and tampering at every turn.  More than likely the level and ratio of political interference is directly proportional to the dollar amount in political campaign coffer money.  The more money spent by those opposing facts and regulations the more political interference/tampering is purchased.

For one example:

• No minimum dose specified by EPA for 50 years or more due to government interference or it is impossible;  or both. 

One can imagine how a minimum dose rate at some very low level would enhance our claims of not only personal damages but follow on birth defects damages for our offspring.  I personally think you could hold your breath for the next 15 years and this is not going to take place until more of us are taking a dirt nap. 

Not only our claims but the claims of civilians that have been exposed around in our nation by chemical companies as well as the surrounding civilian areas close to military bases where the militarized versions were used.

I do want to point out that chemical companies are not the only bad guys in this dioxin increase,,,, as any industrialized nation is going to see an increase in these dioxins from various sources.  Correspondingly they also are seeing the same health issues increase in their populations.  However, we cannot make sure or enforce the requirements and make changes on any of this; until some minimum dose per weight or dose over time can be defined.

In my opinion again; I am not sure we can even measure down to the level that no effects would be seen over life for all human conditions and parameters.  It might be all science can do at this point is so state that fact and suggest a minimum level for various conditions and characterizations in the environment and development stages and then say ya'll be careful now ya hear!

Ranch Hand Errors and Fatally Flawed Assumptions...

This study had:

• Lack of integrity

• Scientific Misconduct

• Command influence directly altered report content denying veterans a fair assessment of their health status

• Flawed procedures

• Protocol violations

• Interference from the White House and even the Surgeon General

• Crafting for publication

• Waiting as long as seven years for peer review

• Management changing study scientists concluding medical statements; even after they had been cleared for publication

• Scientists had no intellectual freedom

• Were not telling the facts on issues that were found statistically increased greater than 50% but did not meet the government mandated linear response and were never brought forward.  How nice is that?

This study is so fatally flawed as to render it useless just as our White House and Congress have seen to it.  Not only my words but as follows:

"However, hundreds in the comparison group spent time in Vietnam and may have been exposed to herbicides, too, said Joel Michalek, who worked on the study from the beginning and was its principal investigator for 14 years until he left in May.

"It spoils everything," Michalek told The News.  "It's as if you're running a clinical trial on a new medication, and you found out some of the people who were in your placebo group were actually taking meds.  That would spoil your whole study.  And that's what's going on here in this study."

Where has our congress or our so called friends according to our VSO's been for the last 32 years???  Turning a blind eye and deaf ear to our concerns about what was going on and the above confirms what we also concluded and have stated for decades now.

By testimony in 2000 Ranch Hand Scientist concluded that Veterans were not being given a fair health assessments in:

• Birth Defects

• Cancers

• Heart disease

• Vascular disease

• Endocrine disturbances

• Hematological difficulties

• Neurological ailments

I will not go into all that I found in the transcripts of this study that I found just despicable but let me add one thing here.

Even the very biased VACEH previously discussed found overwhelming data that Agent Orange or Herbicides was associated to Peripheral Neuropathy.

Seveso, Italy study found an increase, depending on age, a  5x increase in Peripheral Neuropathy in their 15 year after the fact dioxin study.

The 2003 Korean Agent Orange Impact Studies:  (which by the way is the only real honest blind study done by any government, including our own U.S. Government)

Chronic polyneuropathy not only found when comparing Vietnam Veterans to non-Vietnam Veterans to a p-value of 0.0042 but also associated to four levels of dioxin exposures at a p-value of 0.039 with an odds ratio of 2.39.  Diabetes already covered was found at an odds ratio of 2.69. 

A second Korean Agent Orange study concluded: “Based on the results of two studies, Peripheral Nerve Disease is the most prevalent disease associated with Agent Orange.

Ranch Hand even though the study as we now know was slanted towards not finding much... found and stated a found dioxin response to chronic polyneuropathy. 

• Data showed a significant increase in the index of polyneuropathy

• Another run through the data showed it correlated significantly with dioxin.

• ... we consistently found a statistically significant increased risk of all indices of peripheral neuropathy among Ranch Hand veterans

• A significant and adverse relationship between peripheral neuropathy and dioxin body burden was found

So why has VA not changed this bogus Peripheral Neuropathy that they say they cover if manifested one year after Vietnam and resolved within two years.  Because they do not have to based on the evidence; they work for the defendant.  Remember it was the Secretary of the VA, Derwinski, who bastardized this association by putting these constraints on a found associated neurological disorder association.

You will also note that none of the information I provided was one year after Vietnam but decades after Vietnam and nothing had resolved itself in accordance with the obvious medical neurological disorders specialty genius mind of Secretary Derwinski. 

In other words, when then President Clinton announced this disorder as being associated as a "degenerating neurological disorder" it certainly does not match the Secretary's then some how conclusion this was only a transient form like you had been bitten by a snake or spider or tick or something like that.  Instead of created by a toxic chemical with a half life in the body of seven to eleven years.  There is no reasoning or logic in this scenario except a bunch of votes for Clinton and then to have his appointee eliminate the costs for those votes to the point that after the constraints were applied; no one would even qualify for the compensations.  Boy they had that one down to a fine science of costs versus votes.  A science of politics that is.

Why has IOM not recommended this disorder as associated?  I do not have a clue.  As a person who use to do root cause failure analysis I understand having a root causal effect.  However, when some of the finest research hospitals in our nation such as Harvard Medical clearly state that in 33% of the cases the underlying causation of a patients peripheral neuropathy will not be resolved; then I suggest IOM is asking to much in this causal mandate regarding this disorder.  And that yes subclinical is a real medical term that must be recognized as fact.  And yes a found linear response to an increase in TSH and then a found increase across all levels of exposures of anti-thyroid antibodies does indeed mean something such as a greater than three fold increase in thyroid issues for the Vietnam Veteran as a segment of society as found by State University of New York and recently published study.

There are only noted three causes of peripheral neuropathy that I can find by our medical experts:

• Some Cancers

• Immune system dysfunctions with antibodies against nerve matter;  in other words autoimmune

• Diabetes or even pre-diabetes that have not met that magical ADA definition glucose number of what constitutes a diabetic ---- created for insurance purposes - real or not

Where is Senators Webb and Akaka and Sanders and Burr they were so quick to challenge the last associations.  Yet when the evidence is clear on our side they seemed to run off and hide.

One more thing on this neurological issue.  I have yet to understand nor has anyone explained to me how we can have all this peripheral nerve damage by empirical and study data and not one system of our autonomic system or ganglion sensors can be affected.  This seems some what far fetched in accuracy.

Among all the questions and confusions created by Ranch Hand.... Congress then transferred the study to the FDA.  One of the things congress does when they want to nullify something it transfers to a different agency and then does not fund it.  Sound familiar?  Rand Hand Committee scientist were supposed to meet every six months but because of lack of funding did not meet for over three years.  Sound like they support Veterans to you?

Because of costs.... autoimmune testing in Ranch Hand instead of 100% went to random sampling.  That works on quality assurance issues but not trying to prove something to 95% true statements.  $140 million dollars and they could not go back to congress for an additional percentage.  Maybe they did and congress refused to add money since they transferred to the FDA agency and provided no funding.

Lack of VSO Challenges and support at national level or going TO THE media...

In my opinion, our VSO's at large have not been as aggressive as they should have been or are they at present.  Not just in direct issues but when information comes up proving the DOD denials... it is not pushed.  Congressman Filner pointed out that maybe they were afraid of losing their own benefits at national level. Most of these issues I have pointed out are known issues yet no VSO's have pushed these facts and mandated that Congress do something.  If Congress will not respond then they should have gone to the media and not just the local media.  Do not continue to perpetrate this myth that our government treats our Veterans well.  Especially when they are treated like a third class citizen where the illegal or terrorist or convicted criminal has more rights to constitutional justice than the Veteran who served his or her country honorably.

We all know that the media now is divided between liberal media and conservative media.  If the VSO goes to a newspaper or broadcast outlet and they refuse to publish or broadcast what is going on ...then see who is in power at the time and go to the media outlet that would love to slam the other side.  Washington is all about playing politics now - not our nation anymore; and our VSO's have done a miserable job of playing that shell game.

If a paper refused to publish with the millions these VSO's have they could have purchased advertisements and the like.  If the paper still refuses with the crap they put out today then sue their brains out.  Tell the truth so America's sons and daughters can know the real facts before they sign and even endorse that blank check.  At least inform them so they can make logical decisions based on the facts not some recruiters less then truthful... join now pitch.  Yes tell them the good but temper it with facts of when they get out as to how they will be treated.

Since Veterans traditionally split vote around 60/40 during any election year there really is no incentive for Congress to do anything.  The media would probably have been a better option. 

When America's sons and daughters realize how they will be treated when their service is over and no one will serve this government; maybe then Congress will do something to stop it.  Until that time it will be business as usual.

 

Lack of Media Integrity... both print and broadcast...

The media will not publish the real facts when it comes to Veteran Issues. 

Project 112 and SHAD was denied forever that it had even taken place.   It was only after an investigate reporter found some civilians had been accidently exposed as well and then investigated; and then went public did we get some semblance of admission. 

Charges of "the government is holding back “life and death” information for thousands of sailors who were Saran gassed and exposed to toxic chemicals and biological agents" were made

When these men or their widows applied for medical care or disability compensations from our illustrious Veterans Affairs the answer was:

"The Department Of Veterans Affairs denied claims because the government said the tests never occurred."  How nice is that????????? Civilians count but Veterans do not. 

Then we have Knight Ridder News - two reporters there sued the VA to get information regarding Veterans Claims.  Eventually they won and VA admitted to them that 12,000 Veterans had died waiting on their benefits.

Now let me say this . If VA will lie to Congress as admitted to by Congressman Filner then you can just about guarantee that the 13,000 in reality was more double or triple that amount that died waiting on benefits.  Just as Congress has planned for in yearly budget control.

These reporters won some awards for this action but let me add;  it was shortly after that Knight Ridder was bought out by a rival news agency.  Makes one wonder about who in DC these folks really angered... does it not?  Do I put this pass our government that revenge was taken?  You bet I do not! 

Then we have the Chicago Paper that did a six or seven part series on Agent Orange.  I was ecstatic when I heard this going to take place.  I thank them for the attempt but that was all it was.  It was nothing but a paddy cake series that did not point out the issues that needed to be pointed out.

Then we have the broadcast media - I recall when then Congressman Sanders was on Bill O'Reilly.  During the conversation Congressman Sanders made the comment that the public did not how bad our Veterans were actually treated by the government.  Mr. O'Reilly in his all knowing persona then stated to a Congressman who was on several of the committees including the Oversight Committee in 2000 where he heard the facts on Ranch Hand and said "OH that is not true" and then went on to something else.  They just do not want to hear it and their words of praise and thanks in the media is just a bogus as Congress if they will not tell the truth.

Backlog of Claims... and speed of claims decisions

This subject has become nothing but a joke by our elected officials in congress.  All of them feign concern and then do nothing about it.  All they say or do is state they have provided the funding to reduce the backlog.  Yet, it never happens it just goes up and up.  This is nothing but yearly mandated budget control.

Congressman Filner just proposed that if the Veteran took 30% and that would be final they could reduce the claims.  This is nothing but congressional garbage.  VA has been wanting to do this since I attended the disability commission meetings years back only they wanted to do 20%.  I stood up and said not only no but hell no.  Yet, it seems I was the only one.

By the way this is a far cry from when Mike and I meet with Congressman Filner and he was ready to approve all claims related to Agent Orange.

Outside of the government interference, manipulated facts, failure to publish facts already discussed; the claim processes and procedures plus definitions are designed to do nothing but deny, stall, or frustrate the Veteran or Widow into submission to just give up.  Spurious request after request is made to the Veteran for more and more information - a lot of it redundant in nature.

The definition of when a Veteran dies his claim dies is unjust and rewards VA and our government for stalling. In fact, I consider this a direct conflict of interests and punishes the Veteran.  Why should the Veteran suffer financial loss because of non-performance on purpose by VA?

Even on associated disorders this is taking way to long.  A ten minute automatic presumptive claim decision is taking months or even over a year.

Again when Mike and I meet with Congressman Filner I pointed this out.  That by taking away that definition of when Veteran dies his claim dies with him takes away any and all government reward for stalling and VA non-performance.  A direct conflict of interest would be removed.

I also pointed out that just because a Veteran dies does not mean that the case is closed because the widow has benefits in claim perpetuity; therefore the claim should continue to its conclusion with the widow as the claim beneficiary.

Let me give you a few examples:

Gary Henton served in my artillery battalion.  He was diagnosed in a VA hospital Augusta GA by VA doctors with two already associated cancers.  He submitted his claim to Atlanta VA regional and started private treatment.   Eight months later he still had not been approved and it was obvious he was not going to make it.  Now his wife Karen and he had expended money because it was obvious he could not work.  They also sold off family assets to stay solvent during this time period.  I finally made some inquires in DC as to why they were stalling his claim and it was approved two weeks before he died.

Now if it had not been approved within that time frame Karen would not have received the money on the claim to at least reimburse her for Gary and her subsidizing the US government with their own life long worked for assets.  If not approved in time Karen would have had to get in at the end of the longest line and apply for benefits rather than being automatically covered taking who knows how long where she would have to expend even more financial resources.

Now this case should have taken hours to decide especially since Atlanta has access to the medical files on line from Augusta.

Did the Veteran serve in Vietnam?  Yes

Does he have a valid diagnosis of the disorder in question?  Yes - It was diagnosed by VA and VA doctors

Is the disorder in question on our list of presumptive disorders.  Yes 

Is there a C & P required based on the Disability Rating Schedule?  No not with two cancers and undergoing treatment = 100%

If a C & P had been required then immediately grant the claim at 0% as Service Connected until the disability rating is resolved.  That way everyone including the possibly soon to be widow is covered.  Why wait on granting a claim as "Service Connected: that is going to be approved because of scheduling problem with QTC or even within VA itself.  Yearly Budget control is the answer.

Approve the claim and get the paper work over to finance.  In the above matter; even the VA doctor should have been allowed to push a button and say approved.

A sophomore in high school could have used a 3 x 5 index card check list and approved this claim as "valid" in ten minutes - no offense to the sophomore.

Then another member of my unit who was my Battery Commander.  Suffering from MM he submitted to the Chicago Regional Office.  He also was having a hard time getting his "already associated claim approved." He did not tell me; otherwise I would have jumped in and found out what the issue was.  Now Captain Cooley was a West Point classmate of the present Secretary.  The family, as he was dying, finally contacted the Secretary in person on the issue of not getting an already approved disorder covered and he was finally approved shortly before he passed away.  I understand the Secretary was not amused to say the least.

I do not remember how many Widows have written to me for help in their cases as they made a death side promise to their Veteran husbands not to let the government bastards get away with it.  Some have prevailed and after years have won their case - too late for their dead husband of course who died knowing his government had turned their collective backs on him.  In some cases, I have had some come to me and say I just cannot deal with this VA or BVA issues anymore; so I am giving up.  My best guess is those that won just came up in the VA or BVA budget control lottery --- just as simple as that.

One can readily see by using this definition our government is saving millions of dollars a month based on and "counted on" poor performance by VA.

When I say poor performance even outside of the time it takes there is more.  I think it was in 2007 a study was done on VA regional offices regarding their decisions.  It was found that in 50% of the cases BVA either remanded the claims for further work or overrode the Regional Office and awarded benefits.  Two Regional Offices my own Atlanta and St. Petersburg reached a zenith of 63% of their claim decisions were questioned in the same manner.

Then we have the make work for the Veteran commissioned by VA.  They tell the Veteran to establish a nexus between the disorder and the exposures.  Even if you submit evidence that would stand up in any court they then say only the Secretary can find and pronounce an association to the herbicides in accordance with U.S.C 38 whatever that paragraph is.  So why do they do that?  Just more stalling is all.  They know going in they are not going to approve whatever you submit even though their statement does not so state that fact. 

Then you have to go the BVA and more years of emotional stress and doing more and more to try and prove your case.

BVA... another pit of vipers and nonsensical approach to claims and claim decisions.

I think we can all agree that the BVA is the higher legal authority for VA.  If they can override claims and approve claims denied by VA I would suggest this is fact. 

However, they also just like VA want to try the exact same generic case 10,000 times rather than approving one claim and approving it automatically times 10,000.  Again this is nothing but budget control and of course "comfortable high paying government jobs."

In our set aside legal system there is no order of precedence in case law or case decisions that exists in a real court.

Ironically even the senate when confirming a new Supreme Court Justice uses case law to question the candidate.  Yet, for Veterans case law or legal order of precedence means nothing to our congress.  Keeping the backlog of claims artificially high is more important.

I cannot fathom how one esophageal cancer is approved to a Veteran or Widow as associated when the Veteran that served right next to the Veteran at the same time that was approved is denied.  How can Captain Kelley be approved and Sergeant  Kelley who served side by side at the same time be denied when the cases are identical except for the docket number at the top of the claim.  Government budget control is the answer.

How can VA keep denying claims for esophageal cancer when BVA, their higher legal authority, has approved and found that esophageal cancers are associated to the herbicide exposures based on the evidence submitted. Again... government budget control for a set aside segment of the nation that can do nothing about it... is the answer.

A suggestion I made to Congressman Filner when Mike and I met with him was indeed to do a computer search of BVA decisions.  Those decisions that were generic in nature and made a valid positive as to the associations should be then sent to VA stating approve all such claims immediately.  A higher legal precedence has been found and esophageal cancers have been found valid.  Since congress is always harping on using information technology to expedite this would be a perfect candidate to do a computer search based on data fields.  BVA decisions are computerized and searchable by criteria fields.  I had estimated a reduction of claims by > than 250,000 claims in six months.

I even offered to do it with about five other vets and write up the results and submit to him and have Congress pass a bill demanding VA or express as "shall approve" these claims immediately.  But that will not occur in our lifetime.  I also offered to include not only the found approvals for anomalies in question but also provide the data that supports those claims approved.   But once again that whole scenario would start off as Once Upon a Time in a Honorable Magic Government that in reality never existed.

Remember in many many many cases the only issue in question is the association.   If found legally associated for one set aside member of society.  Then how can it be denied by the same legal authority.  If enough evidence is found in a legal setting then all such claims should be approved immediately.

I previously discussed our bill we had that would have included esophageal cancers and how it went no where.  Congressman Kagen a medical doctor himself testified at the BVA for one of his constituent widows that it was associated.  Yet, that bill was not pushed. I guess the rest of the Veterans and Widows in the Nation are so much chopped liver.

I used esophageal cancer as an example but this search and approval system could be used for many different areas to include geographical areas that have been approved at BVA level such as Guam for an additional example; as well as Gulf War Issues.

Congressman Filner himself recently in a hearing on Blue Water Navy talked of the high incidence of esophageal cancers among the Blue Water Navy Veterans.  Yes, after I read the Seveso Italy dioxin disaster report it would be expected to show a high increase in this Veteran segment.  Seveso found that in the lower dose esophageal cancers were significant y increased where in the higher levels it was not.  Therefore if this trend is truly a found significant association then it would be expected the Blue Water Navy with its "less exposures" would be significant.  And it seems even the Chairmen of the House Veterans Affairs Committee has so stated a found condition and yet esophageal cancers no matter what the dose is still denied.

However, I think most of us know this sane and sound legal way to reduce the backlog claims will never happen as long as we are in this set aside legal system and congress wants to keep the backlog as high as possible to fund other things that buys them more votes.  If this were not the case then I would put forth this backlog would have been reduced decades ago and processes and procedures improved to expedite not stymie the earned benefit.  As we have seen and experienced first hand this is not the case.

Let me give you another example of a precedence already set that could also speed up what eventually will be found associated if we can just live long enough.

Birth defects as we all know for the paternal exposures is associated for the offspring with Spina Bifida only.  For the maternal side there is a whole page of birth defects found.  Now for those of you that do not know the maternal birth defects are NOT; I repeat are NOT associated to any exposures but only to Service in Vietnam.  Of course I think everyone knows why.  If the government found it associated to all of the maternal exposures and the list of just horrible birth defects then the government and the chemical companies would be in peeing contest as to who could blame whom. Opps!  There goes the campaign coffer money.  And of course the numbers game to get votes of covering only females that served in Vietnam.  Cost versus campaign outcome in other words.  Not saying it is not warranted only they slimed the rational as to why.  One only has to think of what was different in our war that was different than most other wars when the females came home with no birth defects in offspring.  DUH!  Yet, I guess our government must think we are all stupid and swallowing this stuff hook line and sinker.  Apparently this goes for our media as well.

So this whole p value must equal 0.050 is just a stalling technique.  The Secretary has the complete authority in USC 38 to override any of this political stalling.

Let us not forget once again as I suggested above in the BVA process.  Already we have had cases for paternal exposures approved as associated by BVA for such birth defects as Dandy Walker Syndrome.  Again.... if it is found associated legally with the evidence provided then why are not all such cases immediately approved at VA or BVA itself as legal precedent of found associations.   Remember only the association is questionable for presumptive disorders.    

Dandy-Walker Syndrome is a congenital brain malformation involving the cerebellum (an area at the back of the brain that controls movement) and the fluid-filled spaces around it. The key features of this syndrome are an enlargement of the fourth ventricle (a small channel that allows fluid to flow freely between the upper and lower areas of the brain and spinal cord), a partial or complete absence of the area of the brain between the two cerebellar hemispheres (cerebellar vermis), and cyst formation near the internal base of the skull. An increase in the size of the fluid spaces surrounding the brain as well as an increase in pressure may also be present.

Also there have been neurologist in a paternal case who have stated:

"As a neurologist, I would have to state that it would be my opinion that neural tube defects felt to be etiologically related to a teratogen should all be included and not just one, as that does not make embryologic logical sense.  As Dandy Walker is, by most authors felt to be a neural tube defect, it would be the opinion of this examiner that if the child carries this diagnosis that he does in fact have a neural tube defect and therefore has an analogous disorder to Spina Bifida.

APPROVED...Dandy-Walker is, in the opinion of the examiner, a neural tube defect and therefore, it is as likely as not that he (Michael) is warranted for compensation on the qualification as a diagnosis related to Spina Bifida and presumed Agent Orange exposure on the part of the father while serving in Vietnam."

Now this decision by VA to cover the many birth defects of women that served in Vietnam was based on single study done by VA.

With regard to that study...

From Ranch Hand Congressional Oversight Transcripts May of 2000:

Dr. Schwartz. I think the thing is that Ranch Hand was designed to look at Ranch Handers. What happened was because they honed in on the ability to be able to measure dioxin, that became the coin of the realm when indeed it should not be the coin of the realm. And statistical significance should not be

the way in which you decide what things are compensable disabilities.

Dr. Schwartz.  "I think that when the National Academy of Science reviews, even though they do mention in their reports some of the things about Ranch Hand's protocol and study design, that if it's not statistically significant, Ranch Hand does not publish it. Therefore, we are not getting all of the information.

If Ranch Hand is publishing, crafting their reports to fit into professional journals, then we are not seeing the things that probably are greater than a 50 percent chance. So we are denying veterans, or maybe we are denying veterans some compensation and disability for the facts that we have not really looked at all.

And also, I think the thing is that the subjects who have participated in the Ranch Hand study deserve, deserve to know if there is anything else. Dr. Albanese raised an excellent point, that the study is of herbicides. There were 15 herbicides used in Vietnam. Agent Orange was one of them."

Now then; Now that I have you set up properly on what has been happening in birth defects and other issues not reported; and this is just a snippet;  Listen to this by Dr. Albanese and his testimony under oath to the Oversight Committee.

Dr. Albanese. Congressman Shays, I think it's very important for me to say, based on what Dr. Schwartz just said, I studied that report on the birth defects to female veterans. The pattern in the Ranch Handers (all males) is nearly identical to the pattern in that study. But because they didn't meet the standard of a linear increase with dioxin, the fact of that difference hasn't been further pursued. That's the tragedy of it.

Let me add something here at this point on dose and this mandated mythical linear increase used to deny presumptions and medical impacts.  Both of these have not been established by our own EPA.  Yet, we have known about these dioxins and the harm they create in many medical issues to include changing our god given genetics for at least 60 years.  WHY?  (In some tests I have seen published as I recall from University of Pennsylvania in cell testing; At a smaller dose cell changes take place yet as the dose goes up in that particular cell it stops.)

So that must mean one or all of the following:

• Dioxin safe minimum dose is indefinable in medical issues created and genetic mutations.  Very possibly because we cannot measure the smallest dose that will have an effect.

• EPA can establish a minimum dose and our government will not let them publish the facts because of impacts in cost for our veterans, as well as our exposed civilian population.

• EPA cannot establish this government/VA mandated linear expression. 

• EPA can establish a linear expression per outcome and our government will not let them publish.

Exam those statements and then tell me why has the EPA remained silent for over 50 years when one of their main functions with their budget is to characterize toxic chemicals and protection of our nations population.  It is either because it cannot be done or our government will not let them; or both.

From what I have researched and the conclusions of some exposures point to even more issues in an infant at very very low doses that are exposed in brain development and other issues as well; outside of being a true adult and then being exposed.  I have also found that brain development does not stop as an infant in all and that some brains are still developing into their late teenage years and even early twenties.  In other words their are impacts that are not even being looked at today of our very young Veterans that served in Vietnam.  At least that I can find.

Come on now you really do not think that the increase in lipid metabolism issues and the rapid increase in diabetes in our population as well as other industrialized nations is based solely on eating McDonalds French fries?

Do we have a double standard of proof based on costs and numbers to be covered and protectionism of a multitrillion dollar industry in exchange for campaign dollars.  In the infamous words of our VA;  I personally think.... "it is at least as likely as not".

QTC IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE CLOSELY EXAMINED...

Most of you probably already know this but I going to repeat it anyway.

The contract for QTC to do C & P exams was let out when Secretary of the VA Principi had the job.  His prior job before taking over the VA was Chief Operating Officer for QTC.  When he resigned and Secretary Peak took over his prior job was Chief Medical Officer for guess who???  QTC

Now there may not be anything wrong but in overview this looks real bad to me.

What I have found out in my case in several issues VA had all the data on file to meet the disability rating guide lines and make a decision with no QTC involvement.  Yet, I had to go.

I found duplicity of testing and trying to run tests that had nothing to do with the issues I had submitted.  In fact, on two tests they wanted to run I refused to do them until the doctor I was seeing could justify to me how those tests applied to my disabilities.  Of course he could not.  I was sent to to waiting room until they could decide what to do I guess.  Then the doctor sent out one of the office workers to tell me there had been a mistake by VA.  You bet there was.  In my opinion that was going to be billed to the taxpayer for no other reason than inflating the costs of a C & P.

My third trip to QTC was for my heart.  Now the ruling on ischemic heart disease was finalized in Oct of 2010.  On November 7 2010 I had my second heart attack.  After recovering and such I filled out the paperwork to add a disability to my claim just in case I took a dirt nap from a heart attack my wife Glenda would be automatically covered and not have to fight the criminals at Atlanta VA.  At the same time I had Dr. Proctor one of the finest heart doctors in Atlanta fill out the disability questionnaire using the VA form for that very reason.  I also submitted his after-cath report and diagrams of what he found in blockages and what he tried to do.   Everything was submitted that corresponded to the VA Disability Rating Guidelines.  Including MET evaluation, left ventricle efficiency rating, etc.  All of it corresponded exactly to the VA rating guidelines demand for a decision on percentage.  Confirmed diagnosis of ischemic heart disease and CAD was specified including that I had suffered a myocardial infarction.

Now some one tell me how a QTC doctor is going to do anymore than the doctor who had just come out of my heart and filled out the rating guide line.

Then when I got home that day I had another QTC appointment in the mail for St Josephs Hospital, noted here in Atlanta as the finest heart hospital, for a stress test.  Now we already had that done in February of 2010 to verify the damages at the same hospital.  Actually we did a nuclear stress test as I could not function on the treadmill.  So a stress test done two months prior at the very same hospital is not good enough to make a rating decision.

There just seems to be a whole bunch of duplicity of exams and extra testing going on here at taxpayer expense that should not be needed to make a legitimate decision.

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO SAVE MONEY

• Veterans Disability Tax or OFFSET

Since just after the civil war this tax has been imposed on our disabled career retiree veterans by congress.  This in most peoples mind is two separate benefits earned.  One by completing the contract for earned retirement and the other service connected medical care and compensations received in service to our nation.  This disability tax was passed as a cost saving issue not as to whether it is fair or not.  Yes, I know there is Concurrent Receipt now for some of our retirees; not all, which is an entirely different program.  Just the name Veterans Disability Tax should be despicable to most in Congress but alas it is not.  Just another program to take "earned benefits" and give the funds away to someone who has done nothing for the nation except breath the free air provided by the disabled retiree.

I have to wonder if this despicable tax is now or ever was explained completely by our military recruiters and retention NCO's and Officers before the potential career soldier signs on the dotted line to cash that blank check.  Explained to the point that concluded that his or her own earned retirement would subsidize what ever the government or service did to him or her in the form of any disability created; including life long herbicide damages.

This whole Veterans Disability Tax has been and is since the end of the civil war just an example of how our Presidents and our Congress support those that have defended this nation against all.

• Widows Disability Indemnity Compensation OFFSET

Once again in most peoples mind this is and has been two separate issues.  One is the Disability and Indemnity Compensation Benefits for our widows and minor offspring earned by the Veteran.  The other being a separate insurance policy paid for by the Veteran.  Yet to save millions of dollars our government offsets these two separate issues as far as money received by the widow and any minor offspring.

As I understand it; and I am sure there are some in the audience more familiar than I on this issue; Congress finally has done away with the offset but has not funded to do away with the total offset and has only provided funding for a very small minimal increase per widow.  Close but no cigar in my opinion.  This should have been a funding priority at the very least.  This reminds me of the Ranch Hand issue - let's transfer it over to the FDA but provide no funding.  Maybe more of the Veterans will die off by the time we get more answers.

• Congresswomen Michele Bachman of Minnesota

As some of you may or may not know Congresswomen Michele Bachman of Minnesota on her website posted some of her proposed cost saving ideas.

One of her ideas was to once again OFFSET the Veterans disability compensation with his or her earned social security benefits.  Again this is two separate earned and worked for benefits; yet, this was proposed by Congresswomen Bachman.

Now this is not new for those of us who have tried to keep track of our underhanded congress with regard to our Military.  I told my huge e-mail list back in 2002 this was being talked about then.  It was an election year and so it was then shelved.  Congresswomen Bachman's raising this once again is the first I have heard about it since the 2002 discussions.  I will say here and now be very vigilant in this issue.  If it keeps coming up as a cost savings sooner or later we will have to fight our government on this issue.  Lucky for us Congresswomen Bachman after being battered by e-mail and letters and her interest in a possible presidential bid took down that particular cost saving idea.  She then came out with some support for the military and all of that.  Point is; if she supports the military like she said in her reelection campaigns then that should never have been on her website.  Now hypothetically if elected to the presidency one has to wonder since she brought it up; what would she do?????  Again this issue needs to be watched very closely.

That would then give us a "Veterans Disability Tax" and an additional "Disabled Veterans Disability Tax if Congresswomen Bachman had her way".  Boy our government really knows how to treat its warriors.

I would point out that just because you have a sponsor of bill in congress that effects the military in a positive way do not be fooled.  They will take all the credit and of course the votes garnered in the that process of their double talk and then when the bill comes up they themselves will not vote for the bill.

• Lack of Congressional Oversight in demanding from DOD and VA the Truth

One of the primary jobs and maybe the most important jobs for our Congress is in oversight of the executive branch federal agencies.  Taxpayers pay for staff and investigators for this role in many many dollars.  Yet, it seems at least in overview if not political or political infighting to damage the other party we get no efforts on behalf of the congressional constituents.  Congressman Filner himself stated on National TV that Congress knows that VA itself comes to Congress and lies and they can do nothing about it.  They can do nothing about it because they choose not to do anything.  Anyone knowingly lying to congress while under oath can be charged with a crime.  Just as Colonel Hunt concluded on that same show, sitting right beside Congressman Filner, that until some in VA are walked out in handcuffs nothing is going to change.

A primary example of a total lack of interest in oversight for those that defend the nation was the Ranch Hand oversight meeting in 2000.  Out of 51 possible members on the combined committee: three; that is right folks;  the number is 3 congressmen showed up to question what was being done in a study by all accounts had already been concluded by many already in congress as the following:  Quoted....

"The Ranch Hand Study was designed to generate significant scientific data and analysis to be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs , and others in making health care and compensation decisions regarding Vietnam veterans.

But according to a recent study by the General Accounting Office [GAO], requested by our colleague, Representative Lane Evans from Illinois, ranking member on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Ranch Hand has been slow to publish findings, unwilling to share data, inconsistent in conveying design limitations, and resistant to congressionally mandated participation by independent parties.

Controversial from the outset, the Ranch Hand study has been consistently criticized for both scientific and administrative shortcomings. Many believe Ranch Hand has so far failed to fulfill its promise as the pivotal longitudinal study of herbicide toxicity. Some conclude it never will. Others believe this research was designed to fail, or manipulated to avoid controversial findings."

Three out of 51 does not demonstrate much support for a study that by definition and statements above was supposed to be used to determine health care and compensation.  They really do not care no matter what they portray twice a year.

What was even more eye-opening was it was taking an additional seven years to obtain a peer review for the findings while men were dying or becoming disabled or having to deal with damaged offspring; and as of that hearing in 2000 according to testimony only 7,585 men and women were receiving benefits, some at zero dollar compensations, for health effects due to Agent Orange.   Out of 2.7 million on the ground exposed only 7,585 unlucky affected Veterans.  One can readily see with those numbers that the government designed system to deny and stall until they die works very well indeed and has worked in every government versus Veterans issues in all of our Veteran Era Issues discussed earlier.

We do indeed have a direct conflict of interest with our Congress with no way to challenge except by our votes. Not without having a legal recourse in our courts and not decided by the defendant; our own government.

The really sad part of this whole legacy of our government trying to rewrite its own history in this matter in denial and cover-up is what we could have learned.  Learned for the entire world in how these diseases and disorders manifest.  We already had approximately 2.7 million that were known to be exposed with toxic chemicals (plural) many of them acting and creating many issues already associated with exposures to some viruses.  I do not think it would have bothered any of us at all to put what has to be the largest toxic chemical mistake known to man to good use in research of how these issue begin and end.  What a study that would have made for future generations to benefit from.

Instead our government has created on purpose a medical information void for all doctors in treating our issues that they cannot find a good fit for in diagnostics other than a "Vietnam Toxic Chemicals Syndrome Effect" with many symptoms and many different levels of severity within each symptom.

I thank you for your time today and I hope I have provided you with at least some information you do did not know.  I also know it has been a long presentation and I appreciate you letting me get through most of it.

This will be at least as likely as not my last presentation as I have been at this long enough now with at least the last 14 years of my life and it is time for me to move on.  I thought I could make a difference and I guess in a few areas I have but too much as gone unresolved in my quest so I have failed in many areas of what I set out to accomplish.  What I have learned in a hard fought battle is the old saying "you cannot fight city hall" is true.  This also applies to our federal government in an exponential manner.

In my opinion, until we get rid of those in congress and put term limits in we will not win this war.  Having the VA secretary have the same term limits as the Comptroller would also be a good start.  That would leave the VA Secretary beholding to no single president even if that president serves two terms.

But as long as the US Government defendant can make all the rules of evidence and facts to include condoning and participating in collusion and conspiracy; and our congress will do nothing to challenge those in power; and we have had all constitutional legal rights stripped away by that congress: then we do indeed stand alone and are still at war.

Closing...

I will close with a quoted statement by Congressman Chris Shays made during the review of the Ranch Hand Study in congressional oversight in March of 2000.

"At what level do you think Government should consider compensation? Should we have a no shadow of a doubt? The reason why I am asking the question is I have come to the conclusion, based on our work that we have done on Gulf War Illnesses, based on our review of Agent Orange, that I have to be honest with our veterans. By the time we will know the scientific data, you are dead. You will either have died early or you will have died in your old age in pain, but you will not get help from the Federal Government.

Questions....