Ohio AMVETS 2006
David A. Barker, State Service Officer for AMVETS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A SHORT BIO OF THE AUTHOR
PTSD: 25 YEARS AND STILL UNDER FIRE
THE COMBAT VETERAN FROM WORLD WAR II TO THE PRESENT, a short book
RADAR, MICROWAVES AND VETERANS
ATOMIC VETERANS
PERSIAN GULF WAR, THE UNTOLD STORY, a short book
JP FUELS AND BENZENE
WHAT IS TAKES IS A LITTLE COURAGE
AGENT ORANGE IN KOREA
IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR THE VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN, a short book
IF YOU WERE EXPOSED TO AGENT ORANGE READ THIS!
THE HEART OF AGENT ORANGE
PRESENTATION TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE UPDATE 2004 (2005)
VA REGULATIONS
NAVY & AO
THE U.S. NAVY MEMORIAL LOG ENTRY FOR DAVID A. BARKER
SERVING VETERANS, MY PRIVILEGE
David A. Barker, State Service Officer for AMVETS
A short bio from the Chillicothe VAMC. Dave Barker, AMVETS State Veterans Service Officer, was inducted into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame on Thursday, November 3, 2005.
Barker served in the United States Navy from 1958 to 1961 and in the Navy Reserve from 1961 to 1968. He graduated from Morris Harvey College in 1971 and attended Marshall University's Graduate School from 1971 to 1973
.
From 1983 to 1998, Barker served as a Franklin County Veterans Service Officer. He currently serves as the AMVETS State Service Officer, dividing his time between VAMC Chillicothe's main campus and the Portsmouth Community Based Outpatient Clinic (Mondays).
Barker has been very active in veterans organizations, having helped organize seven different AMVETS Posts, two of which he served as Commander for a total of seven years. He has also been Commander at three different VFW Posts for a total of 5 years, and served 3 years as a Post Commander of the American Legion. He served as the VFW State POW/MIA Chairman from 1984 - 1987.
Barker has won numerous state and national awards for his work in support of our nation's veterans and has authored three books which are in the Library of Congress along with several articles concerning the effects of Agent Orange and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
This book is in the U.S. Library of Congress
PTSD: 25 Years and Still Under Fire
Over 25 years ago, I first became aware of posttraumatic stress disorder and the affect it had upon many I knew. At the time, I was a VFW post service officer taking the job very serious. I was representing a former POW Ray Allen, in his quest to obtain VA dental benefits. In many interviews with Ray I found that he and a few other former POW's had common problems as nightmares, flashbacks and a quick temper.
PTSD issues have been a target of the naysayer, since I filed my first case of PTSD for a veteran in February 1983. I was employed by the Veterans Service Office in Columbus, Ohio. The director was a gentleman, who believed, PTSD was non existent excuse for Vietnam veterans to act different. He was followed by a compassionate man who knew and understood the condition. We had in the early days of PTSD claims, both those who believed and those who did not believe. My first director tried to stop me from filing PTSD claims; the second director in 1985 encouraged me to do so.
Currently there are those in the media trying to stop veterans from receiving benefits for PTSD because they do not believe the issues in DSM-IV are as stated. When I checked their biographies, I saw no mention of prior military service. I only wish those all knowing, possibly non-veteran writers would spend a day in my office. They would change their minds I am sure.
The first of two recent examples are Knight-Ridder's investigation dated May 19, 2005 which stated in part "The report's findings mirror the results of a March (2005) Knight Ridder series on the VA's disability compensation program, which found payments for mental ailments are subject to wide swings and veterans in certain states are far more likely to get high post-traumatic stress disorder payments than those in other states. The exclusive Knight Ridder analysis was based on a review of 2.5 million veteran claims records, released only after Knight Ridder sued the VA in federal court last November." Is the purpose of Knight-Ridder to help those who shed not only blood, but their ability to function in society; or to make it even more difficult for those who defend this nations policy to obtain their benefits? This question bothers me considerably.
In another article entitled "VA Lays Blame in Disability Disparities" by the Associated Press dated May 20, 2005 it states in part Staffing shortages and an outdated system for assessing claims are among the reasons for wide differences in disability payments for veterans, the government said Thursday." It further stated "Claims examiners use 60-year-old guidelines to assess ailments; the guidelines don't include nonphysical conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder that are now recognized, according to a report from the Veterans Affairs Department."
The article quickly goes into the financial aspects of claims processing such as the budget and dollars available. It continues by stating "More than one-third of the variance in disability compensation results from different rates of acceptance for certain ailments, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, according to an investigation by the department's inspector general."
The report also indicated investigators found that 25 percent of the VA approved cases of post-traumatic stress disorder they reviewed lacked the proof they expected of the required event or series of events that led to the ailment. Which led the budget oriented Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson to say this report had turned up "some information that demands the attention of this agency." The Associated Press reported Nicholson further saying "The amount of dollars involved is huge and the lives involved are important," Our number one goal is to take care of those veterans who are deserving." It somewhat leaves me wondering which has priority, the veteran or the budget.
There is now a major push, to review Post Traumatic Stress Disorder claims. This is to determine if the accepted stressors meet the Commissions opinion of a suitable stressor; which will over rule the American Psychiatric Association's research work for the past 28 years. Is the new commission to review this particular condition? Is their knowledge going to override decades of American Psychiatric Association research? Perish the thought.
A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:
1. the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others
2. The person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror."
These PTSD claims do take a very long time. One issue that bears mention is the VA only does as current regulation requires. The changes in PTSD criteria were not and are not set by the VA. It is established by congressional mandate through the Federal Register by direction or request of the Secretary of the VA. This normally is a result of the American Psychiatric Association and the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). We are now working with the DSM-IV which had been in print over two years, before the VA got on the same page. It was an additional year, in some cases that all rating specialists rated according to DSM-IV.
If the opinion of the review will save the taxpayer money, the veteran had better watch out.
The Combat Veteran from World War II to the Present
INTRODUCTION TO THE POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER:
Some people feel that personal experience is needed when dealing with PTSD cases, many others feel it is not a factor at all, just a situation. During my experience as a Veterans Service Officer, I have been told by an overwhelming majority of my PTSD clients that they relate better to a person who has actually experienced a stressor.
As a person who personally experienced a violent stressor, I have found it is easier for me to relate to a veteran who is under stress at the time. However, it has been my experience that the person who assists the claimant needs compassion and empathy as well.
POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
The essential feature is the development of characteristic symptoms following a psychologically traumatic event that is generally considered to be outside the range of usual human experience.
The developed characteristic symptoms involve re-experiencing the traumatic event; numbing of responsiveness to, or reduced involvement with, the external world; and a variety of autonomic, dysphoric, or cognitive symptoms.
The stressor producing this syndrome would evoke significant symptoms of distress in most people, and is out of the range of such common conflict. The trauma may be experienced alone (rape or assault) or the company of groups of people (military combat). Stressors producing this disorder include natural disasters (floods, earthquakes), accidental man made disasters (car accidents with serious injuries, airplane crashes, large fires), or deliberate man made disasters (bombing, torture, death camps). Some stressors frequently produce the disorder (e.g. torture) and others only occasionally (e.g. car accident). Frequently there is a concomitant physical component to the trauma which may even involve direct damage to the central nervous system (e.g. malnutrition, head trauma). This disorder is apparently more severe and longer lasting when the stressor is of human design. The severity of the stressor should be recorded by professionals and the specific stressor is noted on Axis: IV.
The traumatic event can be re-experienced in a variety of ways. Commonly the individual has recurrent painful, intrusive recollection of the event, or recurrent dreams or nightmares during which the event is re-experienced. In rare instances there are dissociative like states, lasting from a few minutes, to several hours, or even days, during which components of the event are relived and the individual behaves as though experiencing the event at that moment. Such states have been reported in combat veterans. Diminished responsiveness to the external world, referred to as psychic numbing or emotional anesthesia, usually begins after the traumatic event. A person may complain of feeling detached or estranged from other people, that he or she has lost the ability to become interested in previously enjoyed significant activities, or that the ability to feel emotions of most types, especially those associated with intimacy, tenderness, and sexuality, is markedly decreased.
After experiencing the stressor, many develop symptoms of hyper-alertness, exaggerated startle responses, and difficulty falling asleep. Recurrent nightmares in which the traumatic event is relived and which terminal sleep disturbance may be present. Some have impaired memory and difficulty concentrating. Symptoms are often intensified when activities resemble the actual trauma (e.g. cold snowy weather or uniformed guard for death camp survivors or hot humid weather for Vietnam veterans).
Associated features: symptoms of depression and anxiety are common, and in some instances may be as severe as to be diagnosed as an anxiety or depressive disorder. Increased irritability, unexpected explosions of aggressive behavior, with minimum or no provocation. Impulsive behavior also can create problems such as unexplained trips, unexplained changes in life styles. Symptoms may begin immediately or soon after the trauma. It is not unusual, however, for the symptoms to surface months or years later following the trauma.
The appearance of apparent psychotic symptoms is interpreted by many professionals as psychosis; but, is actual symptoms of PTSD in a normal person.
DISGRACED BY OUR OWN
Early in 1990, one of my clients came into my office to discuss his VA claim for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. After we reviewed the stressor letter regarding his being 50 meters from a falling helicopter, which exploded upon impact, killing all aboard, two on the ground (his comrades) and knocking the veteran several steps back while being singed by the fire from the blast; and, the VA stated: " that was not a life threatening situation, out of the normal range of human emotion", etc. He gracefully presented me a bill from the VA Out Patient Clinic in Columbus, Ohio. The bill totaled $129.0 0, including interest and fees, for his PTSD, which the VA had determined was non-service connected. Of course, we all know the VA had treated many veterans for nervous disorders for years with no mention of cost to the veteran. We have accepted that the treatment for a combat veteran, be automatic according to law, well, we were wrong. Even a combat veteran, with the proof and stressors to go with his proof, did end up paying for his treatments, prior to the claim being service connected.
Now some of our fellow comrades may think if the veteran makes enough money to be in category B or C, he or she should be able to afford the charges. Well, this is not necessarily true. Often, the veteran may have insurance the VA can bill for the treatment; but, not always. The veteran was disabled due to his PTSD in combat, and as a result his insurance was not in force at that time. He had been placed in category C by the VA due to his prior years income, which had ceased. Even if he still worked, the idea of the VA charging a combat veteran for PTSD treatments should make us ill. I asked one of my contacts in the VA why the charges could not be processed on the Agent Orange provision passed by the Congress (HR 1961 Radiation/Ionization- Agent Orange Act) and signed by former President Ronald W. Reagan. He asked: "could we do that? Agent Orange doesn't cause nervous problems, does it?" My response to him was there is scientific evidence that dioxin contamination creates anxiety problems in animals and possible in some humans. This was enough for a change in the policy at that time. I was then told: "we are going to have to change the Agent Orange processing of claims anyway, due to the new rules on what the VA will accept as Agent Orange residuals". This was stated to me by a contact who wished to remain anonymous, and to this day he still remains that way. Again, why subject a veteran to insurance claims and probably alert his/her employer to the fact he/she needs treatment for mental hygiene conditions and risk more prejudicial treatment at work and make it worse than it was before.
This veteran was finally rated as service connected for PTSD at 10%. This could be looked at in the context of DSM-IV, in advance. The veteran had witnessed the helicopter crash. He was not on the chopper, he witnessed the crash.
BASIC STRESS PROBLEMS: FRUSTRATION
The major characteristics of frustrated behavior are aggression, regression and fixation. Each of these has been experimentally produced in the laboratory. Another symptom which is called RESIGNATION is frequently found in case studies. Since the attitudes developed through frustration gives the situation an interpretation which justifies the action to the person involved, he considers his action reasonable. This explains why it is so difficult to explain or convince such a person their behavior is out of reality. These symptoms may show in mixed form and may be difficult to detect.
Aggression in behavior represents some kind of attack. The attack may be one of furious physical violence against the innocent, as he just stepped in line ahead of the subject, it may well be directed against an object; such as, he kicks his car because it won't start (after the kick, it still won't start). Aggression is also verbal in form and the result is taking the frustration out on another person or object; such, as someone being angry and cursing an object or even as far out as blaming an innocent person and knowing the innocent person was not involved.
Regression is a breakdown of constructive behavior and represents a return to childish action. Extreme cases result in infantile behavior and must be treated as babies. Speech and cleanliness may also be that of a baby. Some of the traits are longing to return to the past as a place of refuge and be unwilling to face the future; reflect regressive or childish attitude; easy influence over the subject, or suggestibility; follow the leader, even if the subject knows the leader is wrong; the refusal to delegate responsibility, for fear of losing complete control; blind loyalty, which in the past has destroyed nations.
Fixation is a compulsion to continue an activity that has no adaptive value. The action is repeated over and over; despite the fact the person knows it will accomplish nothing. The subject will literally beat his head against the wall. A common illustration is panic, in a burning building people persist at pushing at barred exits knowing the exit is blocked, fear has created fixation. This shows why unfavorable attitudes are difficult to change.
Resignation is the most severe of the degrees of frustration as the person has given up. The fight for survival is gone, the "I don't care" attitude prevails, he surrenders; thus, "all is lost". This is the form dictators will use to take control of the mind. It may be a dormant situation and most people do not realize it is there. People in a state of resignation obviously have low morale and will remain socially neutral unless their mental condition changes.
The causes of the differences in behavior undoubtedly depend upon personality differences, cultural differences, and to some extent, intellectual differences. Many differences may be heredity. Acquired differences depend on previous experience: develop emotional adjustments, learning cooperation, feelings of insecurity and social status within the group.
The various individual differences complicate predicting behavior; however, the general effect of frustration will cause change in the behavior pattern. Some have said "the Desert Storm veteran is frustrated", now we know why.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
In review of the essay Basic Stress Problems: Frustration, please indicate any of the conditions that have appeared in your life since your discharge from active service.
Please list each situation you have experienced and what triggered that experience.
Please list as many specific periods as possible that it has happened to you.
Did you have any guilt of the reactions you may have had, and did the situation remind you of your stressor?
COP AN ATTITUDE
I remember when I was a small child going to the theater and watching war movies. I saw great films such as BATTLEGROUND, GO FOR BROKE, SANDS OF IWO JIMA, and many others. It was patriotic and important to every kid in the neighborhood that America was right and we would win. The entire country was behind our war veterans; but the experiences on the battlefield still had terrible toll on the combat veteran. The combat veteran, even with the community and national support, suffered the nightmares and the pain. The issues were attempted to be addressed in the late 1940s. Time soon passed and America forgot the few who still suffered.
Then came Korea. This is a story in itself, quite unusual. It appeared the populace was behind the Korean combat soldier, sailor, marine and airman. However, after the war wound down, it seemed as if the populace was far behind. The Korean war known to some as a conflict or police action became the forgotten war. Those who served in Korea seemingly were shuffled into the background and that was the end of their story, or was it? Today we have many Korean war veterans attempting to regroup and step forward to be recognized. We also have a large number of Korean war veterans in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder programs. They join the WWII and Vietnam veterans in dealing with PTSD. Many people have fluffed off the residual problems of PTSD. It is a severe problem; as long as we have violence and war, this condition will be with us.
Today it seems as if it is very popular, in some scenes to be a war veteran; but it is still far from popularity as we watch and observe. Exploitation is possibly the oldest reason to care, profit! Many dollars are being made on the sweat and blood of the war veteran. Millions upon millions of dollars have been made by the sale of T-shirts, hats , jewelry, as well as billions of dollars on movies, TV, records, tapes, CDs and the like. The profits hardly shared with veterans (if any). During WWI and the Korean war we had MOVIETONE NEWS as well as several other newsreels to show us a limited amount of the desolation that occurred. We also had movies in the early 1950s that hinted of the PTSD problem. However, the American Psychiatric Association chose not to address the issue. After all the veterans were (in their minds) no longer serving their nation. After all, they thought (the APA) there are only a few this affects Why dont they just put this behind them and get on with their lives. Sound familiar? We hear the same rhetoric today! It generally comes from someone who was not a combatant. I do not think I have ever heard a combat veteran make a remark of that nature. I have heard a few veterans make remarks as such, but they were not combat veterans.
The same TV networks that bring in war entertainment, for very large profits, are the very same networks that brought you the Vietnam war and its protests, with their criticism of the armed forces of that period. The people who avoided the war by deferments found time to go into business, get ahead and start a home. The terror of war was only on the TV screen. Others who aggravated the situation of the returning Vietnam veteran, by aiding and abetting the disgusting show of hate and evil anger in the hippie and so called peaceful flower power demonstration of rock throwing, flag and draft card burning to let the veteran know just how important they were. The networks never once, failed to show the world, the popularity status of the Vietnam war was taken out on the nations finest. It was supported by the majority, according to the commentators of the airwaves. Yet when the peace candidate was nominated, America did in fact, by secret ballot completely dispel the myth of peace at any price. Yet as the war wound down, the popularity of the Vietnam veteran was so low, that many veterans did attempt to deny they were even involved in the war effort. Many just tried to forget, while anti war protestors, movie stars, TV personalities, political leaders and school teachers, went on about their lives and carved out respectable livelihoods. Seemingly all war veterans, after their discharge, would enter the market areas only on a much smaller scale. In the big time, big money positions the veterans find themselves represented by such people as Sly Stallone , or the TV anchor Dan Rather, who did go to Vietnam as a correspondent.
Is it any wonder we have problems with our returned heroes? Yes, they are real live heroes. Many forgotten, a few remembered. I have looked in every corner I can find to see if John Wayne served in any war. So far it has been only on the silver screen. This is not a put down of a super patriot, who has a Congressional medal struck in his memory. It is a comment of how popularity is controlled by the media. The undisputed greatest hero of WWII was Audie Murphy. Audie only starred in one successful modern war movie. That movie was TO HELL AND BACK; it was the Audie Murphy story. Yet this true genuine hero of WWII never reached the glory of John Wayne or Stallone. Nor do other highly decorated heroes such as Neville Brand, the second highest decorated WWII veteran Mr. Brand starred in the TV series Laredo. Another highly decorated hero is Charles Durning, who in the 1990s TV series Evening Shade supported Burt Reynolds. Again, the true hero takes a back seat. Remember, both candidates Mr. Clinton defeated for president were real war heroes. Just look at Mr. Clintons draft status during Vietnam!
Sly Stallone of Rambo fame was never in Vietnam, he claims the throne of "hero of the Vietnam war", yet he is only a high paid pretender. The real heroes came back to America and were blended into society quietly and mostly never heard from again. Why? Because the war was so bad, so distressing, so depressing, that it was just easier to go along with the crowd upon return and just try to forget it. The problem was and still is: you just cannot forget it; it just will not go away. The same people who were highly critical of the individual soldier are now in positions of high authority. We have watched a steady stream of anti-war protestors take charge of America, and the Vietnam veteran had to hibernate to forget the pain of it all. The blending seemed to have worked for a while. Then suddenly and unexpectedly we saw headlines in papers throughout the land, of Vietnam veterans who were crazy and committing crimes, such as robbery and murder. These crimes were on the TV evening news, daily newspaper headlines and even movies to depict the Vietnam veteran as a crazed lunatic about to explode. It is no wonder that it was so hard for many of the returning veterans to find a niche in the local community. The people feared an outbreak by this person who served in an unpopular war. The popular war theory always has fascinated me anyway. Why would any war be popular in the first place? That we go to war is for the defense of our nation and its policies and ideals, coupled with treaties that we are bound to for common defense. The questions seem endless with no true answers.
The Desert Storm veteran is simply ignored. Nothing is pressing their issues. No special organizational push. Just business as usual. With the "old timers" complaining "they want it all handed to them!"
It seems as if we have forgotten the years of struggle of the preceding generation of veterans. These too found a strange welcome home. Upon their arrival they were met with very unfavorable reaction and many questions. Each common sense answer always seemed to have another common sense answer that was the exact opposite. The thoughts became very intrusive; the war seemed as if it had never ended. The veteran could now relive the war in his or her mind. It became never ending dreams, nightmares and flashbacks. All so real and all so misunderstood. Many veterans chose suicide as the way out. Others chose to seek professional help. The route of suicide of course did not cure anything but the ceasing of life. The psychiatric help was not all that great either, as many members of the profession did not recognize the problems for what they were. Most in the profession felt the Vietnam veteran was shameful and wrong in their action and very little was done in the late 60's or early 70's to correct the problems that beset the beleaguered Vietnam veteran. The American Psychiatric Association did not address the issue until 1980 when the all out effort on the part of a few became a part of history. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was revised and included the condition we know as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We saw the actual revision in 1981 and recognized PTSD as a condition that explained the actions and reactions of a significant segment of the Vietnam veterans. The year 1994 saw another edition of the Diagnostic Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) DSM-IV, a second revision in a seven year period. It would be of great help for anyone interested in this anxiety disorder to read carefully the section 309.89 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. One will find the true criteria to show this condition as defined today. This is not to say the book is final and ultimate, it is based on 10 year old information and studies. After all, the others were revised as well. Effective November 6, 1996 the Rating Board was directed to use DSM-IV replacing the DSM-III-R. This will be a positive for many Desert Storm veterans. This will allow the VA to rate some claims as service connected, that would have been denied under the old criteria. This seems to be a very positive step forward in bringing favorable justice to those who serve.
In the very latter part of 1988, the Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs finally admitted to part of the dilemma that faces veterans of war. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is experienced by much higher numbers of veterans than projected in the past. The Associated Press article entitled Stress Disorder Found To Affect 15 Percent Of Viet Vets indicated that a four year study ordered by Congress concluded more than 15 percent of the men who served in the Vietnam war are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. It also went on to say that about 20 percent had sought treatment. The VA also admitted that 30.9 percent had suffered the full disorder at some time and an additional 22.5 suffered partially. The same study also shows the Vietnam war women veterans have suffered from the condition of PTSD. Currently 8.5 percent of the women who served in Vietnam have the disorder. The report states the women who have suffered the full disorder are at 26.9 percent and 21.2 percent as a partial disorder. We are years past Desert Storm and no significant studies have shown the PTSD affect upon these troops.
Why not address the real issue: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. PTSD has existed and was the reason for the inability to adjust for a large group of Vietnam veterans. This was not the first time our government had just walked away from a conflict. It was at least the third time. First, it was the Korean Conflict, and then the ill fated Bay of Pigs, Cuba, incident was so secret that the President was unaware of the involvement of the U.S. Navy and the average American did not know what actually happened. Vietnam was very different. It was brought into the living room of America. Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, and Chet Huntley, all gave us graphic details of what our sons had done to these seemingly wonderful peaceful people. It seems as if the networks had totally forgotten that the people of that geographical area had warred with one another for many decades prior to our arrival. The operation in Desert Storm was even more vividly projected into our homes. It seemed as if CNN had a camera on every target. They were in the middle and so was America. Many of the Desert Storm veterans were exposed to various stressors. The action in Kosovo is now bringing the triggers to the forefront on many veterans. Some are angry at the lack of direction by our national political leader. However, the current administration may well have a plan to win and end this newest of the small wars.
The VA study shows a significant number of veterans who suffer from PTSD, yet, the VA makes it so difficult for the veteran to prove a claim. Many give up and walk away. Some have, no doubt, died as a result of poor treatment or no treatment in the past. In handling many claims for PTSD, I have found that very often the claim must go to the Board of Veterans Appeals in order for the veteran to win his or her claim. The VA will deny the claim, even when their own doctors have diagnosed the condition and the service records show significant combat and records of valor. The VA excuses range from: not enough proof of unusual life threatening conditions, or, the VA may state the veteran was not in a MOS that matches their criteria. To expand on that thoughtless position of the VA, I represented a veteran for PTSD in 1983 who was a member of the Marines. His MOS was not considered a combat position. He was in operation Starlight. During this operation, he was wounded in action; he also earned the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. The veterans DD 214 clearly states: #25 Specialty number and title 0311 Machine gunner. The original VA letter to my client was a denial, which included a sentence "your MOS was not clearly of a combat position". How utterly wrong can the VA be? Needless to say, we appealed and won the case with a large amount of back pay to the veteran. This was not all well and fine, the veteran was forced during those years to live on the streets and in the VA hospitals, until justice was done. An obvious ploy by the VA to have the veteran to just give up and quit. The veteran had decided to quit when I begged him to keep with me on the claim. In 1986 we finally saw the fruits. After, much abuse of society, as well as bureaucratic red tape which continued to plague him as well as all other veterans who are suffering from this disorder.
Now we have hope that this issue will be forever resolved with the acceptance of DSM-IV as the guide. Now an acceptable stressor is to include trauma being invoked on someone close to you, possibly your comrade is killed or seriously wounded. As a result you have nightmares, flashbacks, sleeplessness and a valid claim. In October 1996 you would have been denied. Today you have the opportunity to be fairly rated for the first time in the PTSD process.
Once the veteran has established the condition, the VA begins its three year cycle of cutting the percentage or removing the veteran from the program. I have represented several veterans who suffer from PTSD and unable to work at any type of employment. Verified by VA doctors, the veterans were found to be less than 100% by schedule; however, over the 60% minimum required to be granted Individual Unemployability (IU). Because of policy, the nervous conditions were exempt from the IU allowances and the veterans were continually denied. In early 1992, we found victory at last in this area. Many promises, to most veterans, have not been honored.
Yes, we have some solid doctors in the VA system. Their diagnosis are as often overlooked as a combat record. Which again is no longer going to be a major issue? The VA needs to look at its structure of the rating criteria; rather than trying to silence their critics, as the VA had often attempted. The answers are there if the VA would only listen.
We have come a long way since the day of the closest diagnosis being that of: Anxiety Disorder, adult situational reaction. Let us all attempt to understand the plight of our fellow veteran who suffers from PTSD, after all, their war continues on, even today.
Many more than one would think, will visit with me and tell me some of the reasons they feel something is wrong. "I don't know what it is Dave; but, my life just doesn't work like everyone else". I will ask them a few questions to warm up for our one on one discussion. During the critical questioning, we must come to the question of family. Often, very often, the veteran has been married five, six or even more times. The siblings have rejected the veteran, and the veteran has become isolated from the world. Parent rejection is difficult for the veteran to accept and this often occurs. The veteran will strike out at the nearest loved one, even though he knows the cost: a loss of another relationship. Why? He knows what will happen, another rejection, loss, but he cannot help it, the inner control is not his, it belongs to stress. More specific, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Not everyone who has the aforementioned problems has PTSD; however, this is a warning sign.
The veteran with PTSD finds he no longer has a trust for his friends; close relationships soon are a part of history. The former social activities are no longer interesting. He does not actually make new friends, as the trust is gone. Where can the veteran turn? To the VA? A part (in his mind) of the system? He thinks "I can never trust those people! thus, we arrive at the point where we must guide our client properly. We must assist the veteran to choose either the VA Medical Center, its Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Team, or the VA Outpatient Clinic that will afford him the opportunity to receive therapy to overcome his stress. The Vet Center(s) offer help; valuable counsel is available to the veteran at no cost.
When many of the veterans returned to America, they faced the cruel adverse judgment of certain veterans organizations. Many, if not most, heard the phrase, "we don't need your kind in our post, and you are not real veterans". It was several years before this barrier was broken. It took strong leadership in the organization, coupled with strong Vietnam veterans to break this seeming impasse. When the veteran was rejected by his peers of the preceding wars, the problem of rejection became anchored into the mind. Then to be told the infamous words, "that was not a real war". Some of the violators were Vietnam Veterans.
Today, we recognize some of the problems that exist, no person has all the answers; but, the attempts to help are at hand. The VA is long and slow in answering the needs of the veteran; but, as a result of legislation passed in Congress, help is on the way.
We still find in America a "love/hate" relationship with the veteran and their relation with the community. There are those who strongly feel the veteran has been short changed in their readjustment benefits and allowances over the years. There are a growing number of others who actually feel the veteran who asks for the readjustments are crybabies, and expect more than what is deserved. Most of us, in the veteran community feel we should have certain rights as veterans, and we most certainly do, in fact. However, for many to collect their rights, the path was very rough indeed. There were and still are many obstacles in the path that are very difficult to over come, due to the fact that many of the protesters of the Vietnam war are now in policy making positions in government, business, education, industry as well as the VA!
Prior to 1981, the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder did not exist, except in a very limited area of some psychiatrists researching trauma reaction. Most articles one reads today will refer to the World War I condition known as shell shock; or, the World War II/Korean Conflict term combat fatigue, as types of the condition Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. To assume that shell shock and PTSD are one and the same is to err. Combat Fatigue may be a form of psychosis; but, it is not necessarily the same as PTSD in development or the ultimate reaction. A person who suffered shell shock or combat fatigue may well have incurred PTSD; but, this condition did not always result.
For several years, the VA has recognized the condition of PTSD as service connected disabling condition, if the PTSD meets certain criteria. The prominent cases which were first recognized included the combat veteran of Vietnam and former prisoners of war (POW) who applied under the special POW legislation. Although the hard fought battle for recognition of the condition was allowed in 1981, very few veterans could meet the rigid standards set forth by the VA. To understand the position of the criteria of the VA, which has become more flexible in the past decade, is difficult for the layman. It seems to be the opinion and policy of the VA, combat is not enough to indicate the required stressor for a claim of service connected disability PTSD. One of the basic requirements is a life threatening situation out of the normal realm for human reaction and emotion.
The VA has now found WWII and Korean Conflict veterans who were not POW's to have PTSD to varied degrees. This condition is not limited to Desert Storm or Vietnam veterans, although the Vietnam veteran rate of incident is far greater as are the reasons. To complicate the process that is required to establish PTSD, the VA has a special examination that is used in the rating procedure. To be honest, the preparation for the examiner gives enough information to understand the veterans dilemma. The major problems have been the examiner not being familiar with the subject of combat stress or first hand knowledge of how much stress can be placed on veterans who were involved in an unpopular war; also, who were brought into action literally overnight and swept back into civilian life with no adjustment time at all. The veteran is seen on a regular basis by an assigned VA psychiatrist, who knows the veteran and the problems on a first hand basis. However, when the time comes for the deciding examination the veteran is seen by a doctor; who usually has not seen the patient before. They do the examination sometimes in less than ten minutes. Thus, the entire future of the combat veteran, who already has a great distrust of the system, is in ten minutes, diagnosed by a person who has never before seen the veteran. The months and years of treatment by the attending physician may or may not be considered. In nearly every case, the ten minute examination carries the weight. There are several areas of concern for the veteran and the development of the claim. First and foremost there must be a diagnosis of PTSD and a stressor of life threatening situation. Without these two basic factors, there is no claim for PTSD.
In order to prepare a claim, the service record must be reviewed. Prior to filing the claim the evidence must be assembled. To order the records a SF 180 must be submitted. A request for the records should be: Army, the DA form 20; Navy, the Enlisted record of Transfers and Receipts, Administrative Remarks and/or Officer Data Card; Air Force, AF form 7, Officer AF 11; Marines, NAVMC 118 (3) (9) (17); Coast Guard, Endorsement on Order Sheet.
PTSD can exist without the condition being service connected. In several cases, we have the diagnosis as PTSD, yet, the condition is non-service connected due to the absence of actual stressor while on active duty. We must be constantly reminded that even when the condition is apparent, the reason may be other than what we expect. Prior to filing the claim, a complete review of the psychiatric treatment must be considered, hand in hand with the military history. We must expect discomfort on the part of the veteran as well as his representative in this very long claim process. This is not an easy task; the representative must listen well and ask questions that lead the veteran into a full disclosure of the traumatic event as well as the reactions after the event.
Remember, we are still in a learning process, PTSD was only recognized as a mental disorder in 1980. In order for the representative to have a firm grasp on handling claims for PTSD veterans, he/she should become familiar with DSM-III-R, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, section 309.89.
SAGA OF THE MORGUE or, A man during Desert Storm.
Raymond was a reservist called on active duty during Desert Storm. He was assigned to the morgue at the Dover AFB. Raymond did not desire to be assigned to morgue duty, nor did his MOS in any manner resemble that type of duty. He was a Material storage and handling specialist, yet he found himself handling every corpse of those Americans killed in the Desert Storm operation. Raymond did not want that job, but as things go in the Army, that was his job.
As a result of that duty, Raymond suffers all of the symptoms found in DSM-IV for PTSD. The criteria are met line by line, in the newest DSM. However, the VA did grant benefits after the acceptance of DSM-IV.
VETERANS VS. WANNABEES
It seems as if intelligent beings as we are, and with compassion that we allegedly have within our souls. The VA would be able to consider PTSD as a condition that can exist without combat being a prerequisite; but, it is not exactly the way we want it; nor, it is not the way it should be. It is very difficult to convince the VA that a person's PTSD is service connected without the benefit of a combat MOS, such as 11B in the Army or 0311 in the Marines, etc. or the recipient of a medal for valor.
Let us use a case in point. A veteran has filed a claim for PTSD, Chronic, delayed. The veteran has a documented diagnosis from a qualified physician, who is a psychiatrist. The veteran has presented a stressor, which is a life threatening situation, out of the normal realm of human experience. This veteran is a clerk, who is assigned to the headquarters unit in a normally safe area. During a rocket attack on the post, the veteran is in a storage area that is the brunt of the rocket attack. The veteran is not physically harmed, has not been discovered to be in an unauthorized area, has not performed any act of courage, in other words, this veteran has done nothing to get their name logged into a military report. Thus, we have a stressor that is very real, very terrifying, and very undocumented in scope. This leads us to the unfortunate situation of not being able to prove the stressor to the VA. Why is this so? Is there not the "buddy statement" to be considered? The answer is yes, there is the good ol' buddy statement to be considered. The problem is they are not given much credence by the Rating Boards of the VA. Why? Well, one reason is the overwhelming fabrications that have come about in the past several years, especially since being a veteran has become popular. There is a group know as "wannabees", who have made life very difficult for those that actually have borne the battle. The people who are called "wannabees" often were in the service; but, as a result of some factor, did not achieve the degree of heroism they desired. They add to their saga and now are able to compete in the war stories at the local post or tavern. Just as tragic as the "wannabees" are those who actually did the claimed situations, but cannot prove it. Today, we find people who were never in the service falsifying someone elses DD-214 to join veterans organizations or attempting to gain benefits from the VA or other governmental agencies.
When a veteran has requested their military personnel file and the file does not produce the required documentation for a stressor, such as there is no combat MOS, there is no mention the veteran was in or near a rocket attack, is the veteran to just quit? The answer is definitely, No! The resources are available; send a letter to the U.S. Army Environmental Support Group, and request "unit data" being sure to give the complete and exact identification of the unit involved. You must also ask for "After Action Reports" as well as "Lessons Learned Reports" and the "Duty Officers Log" When you have the unit records at your disposal you can then start trying to locate more than one "buddy" to get statements from to prove the event actually happened. The After Action, Lessons Learned reports, or the Duty Officers Log, will often give you the information sought.
Even with this information to document the veterans statement, the VA is often unwilling to yield on the stressor. We need to firmly plead our case before the VA in person, taking as much documentation as possible. I have found with all of the above data in hand, the Hearing Officers will give positive consideration to the veteran.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PTSD DEVELOPMENT SHEET AND STRESSOR LETTER
Attached is a PTSD Development Sheet. Due to the intricate work of this type of claim, I found several years ago that in order to obtain the proper statements and serve the veteran, myself, and the VA, the attached form needs to be completed. I tell everyone the same thing; there are no exceptions when it comes to PTSD. To better express myself, I want you to know that I used to sell insurance and when I first started to sell insurance, the company made me memorize what I told my clients. At first I did not understand why, but after a while by telling everyone the same thing it left no margin for error. I want you to use the PTSD Development Sheet by printing and using only black ink. Be sure to answer every question that applies. Please do not ask another person to complete this form for you, except your spouse (partner), may assist.
When I first developed this form one of my clients came in and asked me who was the moron that made this form. I was embarrassed, but I told him: "it was me." Since that incident I tell everyone, this is my form. After completing the questions on the back page, you will come to the no BS clause. BS means bull shooting. Everything that is listed on this form must be the truth; it may be used in your claim development. Any fabrication that is intentional dissolves our working arrangement.
Finally, we need a stressor letter. The guideline helps you remember many things you had forgotten. Stressor means life threatening situation in combat that is out of the normal range of human experience. Complete the form and return to your veterans service officer.
PTSD DEVELOPMENT SHEET
Name____________________________ date______________
SSN______________________________
Branch of service_______________ service #________________________ Highest rank ______________
Rank during combat_____________ Rank at discharge_________________ VA claim # ______________
MOS__________ Combat duty assignment ___________________ Describe duty ___________________
During combat were you mainly on: Base ____ Field ____ Ship ____ describe_______________________
While in a combat situation area, how often did you:
(choose the word that best fits: never, rarely, often)
fire your weapon at the enemy _____ kill the enemy ______ see someone killed ________ observe death_____, was it our side or their side? _______.
Were any of your comrades killed? ____ Who ______________________________________________ rank ____
Were you in firefights? _____ What did you do?
_____________________________________________________
Did you handle body bags? _______ Describe your inner feelings
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Did you or your unit receive sniper, mortar or rocket attacks? _____ What and how many? ___________________
Describe how you survived
______________________________________________________________________
Before proceeding further, please describe a situation(s) you thought you would not survive (stressor).
Do this on a separate sheet and submit with this form.
This is extremely important and a major factor in a PTSD claim. It is required.
Considering the incident circle that which applies most
somewhat stressful moderately stressful extremely stressful
Did you use drugs or alcohol during your stressor event? _____ if so which? ________
Since your stressor how often do you have: nightmares ____ flashbacks ____ prolonged memories ___
Were you injured or wounded? Yes____ No _____ describe ____________________________________
List your combat medals or ribbons ________________________________________________________
Do you seem to shut out the world? Yes____ No _____
How have your emotions changed?____ describe ______________________________________________
Do you avoid some things you enjoyed before your stressor? _____________________________________
List the date of the traumatic experience_____________
Do anniversaries of the incident bother you? Yes____ No _____ If yes explain _______________________
How has your interest in activities changed since the trauma? ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Are you estranged from others? Yes____ No _____ Explain _____________________________________
Do you have loving feelings?____ Toward who?_______________________________________________
Have your arousal symptoms changed (example: anger, mellow out)? Yes____ No _____ Explain
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you have irritability or outbursts of anger? Yes____ No _____ Explain _________________________
Are you on constant alert? ____ Do you feel someone is about to jump you? _____ Why? ______________
Are you jumpy? _____ Exaggerated startle response, tense, goosey? ______
What are your plans for the future?_________________________________________________________
When a person files for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the Rating Board, of the Department of Veterans Affairs requires several mandatory conditions. We cannot assist any veteran in completion of a successful claim without these conditions being met. We must have a diagnosis competent medical authority, a psychiatrist; record of proof of a stressor. You must be in treatment for the condition and you must meet the criteria stated in DSM IV. You must furnish a written stressor in detail. You need to give approximate dates and names of those killed if involved in your stressor. We will assist you in research for the pertinent data.
Please understand this is a long claim process. You must notify this office upon receipt of letters or phone calls from the VA. You must keep all mental health appointments.
Every veteran filing a claim through this office is expected to give accurate information. We need facts with no exaggeration. Intentional deceit voids this claim. The veteran will not be mislead and the Veterans Service Officer expects the same in return. In signing this form you agree to the above conditions.
Signature of the veteran__________________________________ date _______________
VSC March 1, 1984
REVISIONS: April 17, 1986, October 25, 2001
RADAR, MICROWAVES AND VETERANS
B-MALT, status post left lung lobectomy (claimed as lung cancer) to include as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation and ocular damage.
In June of 1999 a veteran asked me to assist him in his claim for cancer and ocular damage, due to exposure of non ionizing radiation. The exposure was from a radar screen, which was turned on while he was standing directly in front of it. Upon receipt of the claim the VA rating specialist commented "his military personnel records did not contain Form 1141, radiation exposure document." We responded "of course not." At that time the military was not actually concerning itself with microwave issues. This was before the idea of cooking meat (which we are made of) with microwaves.
It was referred to as an issue of the old days " Lymphomas (except Hodgkin's disease) are considered a radiogenic condition under 38 CFR 3.311(d) (2); however, the evidence failed to show exposure to ionizing radiation during service. Again the answer must be, even though redundant: at that time the military was not actually concerning itself with microwave issues. This was before the idea of cooking meat (which is what our bodies are actually composed of) with microwaves. If you recall the first microwave ovens were called Radar Range." Amana made them and they were heavily advertised.
The VA rating specialist indicated Ms Swenson, Chief, Radiation Protection Division of the USAF Radioisotope Committee stated "there was no information confirming any exposure to radio frequency radiation on the part of the veteran." However, even the least aware citizen knows the danger of microwaves. This veteran was exposed to microwaves and that scenario, has been established by his duties and his MOS.
It is stated in the VA's argument in bold type (in part) "This condition did not happen in military service, nor was it aggravated or caused by service." Then in the VA's final paragraph "age related macular degeneration is common in the elderly." I do not consider age 60 as elderly.
The veteran has suffered with this issue for years. Not just recently. His problem was not being a doctor; he was not sure what the symptoms meant. The doctors he saw over the years were not oriented toward radiation problems.
The VA's position is that his records do not show exposure to ionizing radiation in the service. Of course they don't. The people of that day were totally unaware of the effect. If they had been the would have made microwave ovens. Now they warn people: DANGER STAY AWAY! or DANGER KEEP OFF!
The Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine both concede the delay in affect from exposure to ionizing radiation and that many symptoms do not appear for as much as thirty or more years. Why would the cancer appear in one year?
In the VA's comments regarding an October 2000 letter by Ms Swenson of the Air Force Radiation Protection Division, Radioisotope Committee, states that studies provide no clear evidence of detrimental effects in humans from chronic exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR). The VA then states the facts as related by Ms Swenson, regarding the ocular damage that will result from exposure. The VA quotes her "There was no evidence confirming any exposure to RFR by the veteran." My response to that statement is redundant on my part; but needs to be said, this because his records do not show exposure to ionizing radiation in the service. Of course they don't. The people of that day were totally unaware of the effect.
This veterans condition is as a result of his service and during that service being micro waved.
ATOMIC VETERANS
There never has been even a partial, inadvertent U.S. nuclear detonation despite the very severe stresses imposed upon the weapons involved in these accidents. All `detonations' reported in the summaries involved conventional high explosives (HE) only. Only two accidents, those at Palomares and Thule, resulted in a widespread dispersal of nuclear materials.
Nuclear weapons are never carried on training flights. Most of the aircraft accidents represented here occurred during logistic/ferry missions or airborne alert flights by Strategic Air Command (SAC) aircraft. Airborne alert was terminated in 1968 because of: Accidents, particularly those at Palomares and Thule.
The rising cost of maintaining a portion of the SAC bomber force constantly on airborne alert, and, The advent of a responsive and survivable intercontinental ballistic missile force which relieved the manned bomber force of a part of its more time-sensitive responsibilities. (A portion of the SAC force remained on nuclear ground alert).
Although normal DOD policy is to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons or components, recently revised DOD Directive 5230.16 governing public affairs guidance allows for confirmation when required to protect public safety or as a means of reducing widespread public alarm. Therefore, in some of the events summarized here, confirmation of presence is not published. Except for Palomares and Thule, it is not possible to specify the location of the accidents that occurred overseas.
December 8, 1964/B-58/Bunker Hill (Now Grissom) AFB, Indiana: SAC aircraft were taxiing during an exercise alert. As one B-58 reached a position directly behind the aircraft on the runway ahead of it, the aircraft ahead brought advanced power. As a result of the combination of the jet blast from the aircraft ahead, the icy runway surface conditions, and the power applied to the aircraft while attempting to turn onto the runway, control was lost and the aircraft slid off the left hand side of the taxiway. The left main landing gear passed over a flush mounted taxiway light fixture and 10 feet farther along in its travel, grazed the left edge of a concrete light base. Ten feet farther, the left main landing gear struck a concrete electrical manhole box, and the aircraft caught on fire. When the aircraft came to rest, all three crew members aboard began abandoning the aircraft. The aircraft commander and defensive systems operator egressed with minor injuries. The navigator ejected in his escape capsule, which impacted 548 feet from the aircraft. He did not survive. Portions of the five nuclear weapons on board burned; contamination was limited to the immediate area of the crash and was subsequently removed.
(*1)
.
Persian Gulf War, The Untold Story, a short book
CHAPTER ONE: DESERT STORM TO IRAQI FREEDOM
In 1991 and 1992 we all watched the VA slowly put the same squeeze on the DS troopers as they have so well done the Vietnam veteran in the past. First the news came down that the President of the U.S. had personally taken interest in the DS troops and was to assure all of America, the claims of the troops and their families would receive top priority. Many strange ideas were put into effect, such as reducing the beds in VA hospitals to make room for combat casualties. After all, America was supporting the operations in Desert Storm and if a little inconvenience was to be had by a few veterans, so be it. As a matter of fact most of the veteran organizations were willing to turn aside their cheeks and allow the VA hospitals to place veterans on the streets in January!
. . . most of the veteran organizations were willing to turn aside their cheeks and allow VA hospitals to place veterans on the streets . . . and they indeed did put veterans on the street!
In order to utilize the Desert Storm emergency hospitals available, the President was in a position known as "between a rock and a hard place". This is not to take anything away from the importance of the position of the Administration at that time; nor, am I critical of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It becomes necessary to advise you that due to budget cuts, many Military hospitals had been eliminated or greatly scaled down. We had not the method of dealing with the casualties that were feared to happen. In order to prepare for the casualties, our political representatives decided to empty beds in the VA hospitals to gain the required safety numbers for emergency care. After all, the veterans in the VA hospitals usually are those without much political clout. So, the VA hospitals were set up to handle those patriots who were in Desert Storm. No doubt at all, these people needed proper facilities to be set up for their care, just not at the expense of those who had already borne the battle. The next idea to come from the Administration was to handle VA claims quickly. A group of VA specialists were taken from the normal routine and assigned to a special task force to handle the expected high rate of claims. This in itself was not a bad idea; as a matter of fact the theory was very good. They should have gone one step further and hired new employees in the VA to assist the back log of claims. After all in 1995 it was a seven month wait for the average claim to be processed. In 2005 it is an eleven month wait. Unless it is a chemical exposure claim, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which can take years.
Well as time marches on, so does the political thoughts of politicians. Soon the President quietly canceled the special programs for Desert Storm veterans; but, only after he had placed into effect the streamlined special task group to handle the claims and reduced the caseload in the VA hospitals. What did this mean to the veterans? Simple, the Desert Storm veteran had achieved the ire of nearly all other vets in getting more quicker and easier (at least in the minds of other vets). The other veterans were now being served with less people in the various areas of the VA Regional Offices due to the personnel shift. In other words they were being short changed by the VA to accommodate the Desert Storm veteran. In reality the Desert Storm veteran was not being given all of the priority as promised, only the publicity. So they were in the eyes of there fellow vets of prior encounters, being placed on a pedestal, while in reality they were on the chopping block. . . . as time marches on, so does the political thoughts of politicians. So in 2005 we see history repeating itself and veteran standing up to support those who are cutting away benefits, all in the support of their politics!
Well here it is a decade later and we are still in the Persian Gulf, still fighting the same war against the same groups as before. In the between time of media interest, we saw the loss of personnel on the USS Cole, the 911 attack on New York City. This time the VA appears to respond to the PGW veteran. It is costly as older veterans are deleted from the system to make room. We had major problems in 1992 and to give you an example we will discuss a veteran for the sake of a name is Jorge.
To give some background we will identify Jorge's problem. He was wounded in action and declared to be 70% disabled by the Army. Jorge received full Army pay until May 1, 1991. At that time he was separated from active duty and placed on the Temporary Disabled Retirement List. He then had to wait two months without income until the disability check was to come in the mail. He was shocked to learn the amount of his check was far less that he earned while on active duty. Jorge had properly applied for VA Compensation while on active duty and expected to be quickly approved under the promises made to the public by the President. The problem was due to the swift work of the DS troops, the war came to a swift end. As did the special efforts on the part of the VA and the Army. To make matters even worse for my client he does not speak and understand English as well as he does Spanish, so a lot of his expectations were never to be. He thought the VA would make up what he had lost; but, alas, they didn't and won't.
Again we have a generation of veterans who are receiving some disdain of the WW2 veterans, who are quick to criticize our recent heros, who were in the media held in such high esteem (as long as it sold papers and TV time). Then much to my surprise many Vietnam veterans began to become critical of the treatment of the PGW veterans, not knowing the government once again had "kicked the props out from under the vet". Sound familiar? It happens every time.
CHAPTER TWO: PERSIAN GULF WAR VETERAN BENEFITS
In a 1993 meeting of the Veterans Service Organizations with the Director of the VA Out Patient Clinic in Columbus, in early February, Desert Storm exams were the main topic. It was stated by the coordinator for the Desert Storm program that there is a 60% no show on examinations. The VA OPC did go all out to provide excellent medical care and preventive medicine to all Desert Storm veterans who cared to take advantage. It seems as many will indicate a need for medical examinations and cancel for nearly any reason; or, no reason apparently.
We were told the VA Clinic staff, lost a doctor due to the no show attitude. A second doctor has left as well, somewhat discouraged. We are now on our third doctor. With this pattern, we could see an end to a vital program. It seems as if for some it is easy come, easy go. Maybe the terrible lessons learned by the ATOMIC VETERANS have not been passed on to the Desert Storm veterans. It is a possibility these same veterans have not heard of the destruction of minds and bodies of those who were exposed to herbicides also known as AGENT ORANGE.
Now we are in the midst of a struggle again in Iraq. As we work constantly to improve the lot of the veteran in our everyday struggle with bureaucrats to protect what we have; we must insure those in need take advantage of available benefits. It is easy for some people to sit around in a veterans post canteen, or elsewhere and talk about how much is "handed" to a certain group of veterans. Let me tell you, that in my personal experience, nothing has ever been "handed" to any group of veterans. It took over 400,000 lives during WWII to bring this country to establish a viable program to reintegrate American fighting men and women back into society. The battle has never waned in all that fifty years. It has actually become much tougher to hold onto many of our benefits. Currently there is a raging battle over entitlement. This is a word that may cease to exist as we know it. When veterans do not care enough about their health to keep a medical appointment, the appropriation for that care will soon cease. We had the exact same problem in 1995 as we have in 2005!
What does it take to get the attention of a PGW veteran?
In 1992 we were told that Saturdays were set aside at the VA Clinic for Desert Storm veterans to come in for their examinations. Six of every ten failed to show. The doctors feel the persons involved are not interested. It seems as if the doctors may well be right. These same people did not want to miss work to go to the VA Clinic during the work week (as do all other veterans). They were given an opportunity to see the "free", to them, VA doctor on the weekend. The scenario was deleted from the current action. It is strictly Monday to Friday.
Please take the rumors seriously regarding VA benefits being threatened. Several years ago the word "entitlement" was used by ranking veteran organization officers to insure our benefits were more than benefits. Well that was just not true. In the past decade multiple benefits have been simply ended for most veterans. Just because you have not needed the VA as of yet, does not mean you will never need those benefits. Congressional Representatives have proven recently only Social Security will not be on the table, for cuts.
If you are a PGW veteran and have no obvious medical problems congratulations. If you are one of the many who we have seen at the AMVETS office, make sure you show up for your exams!
CHAPTER THREE
THE DESERTED STORM, NOW WHAT?
In the 1992-95 years, we watched another generation of veterans suffer; from the wrath of a system that was designed to help them. It seems as if the bureaucratic officials throw every possible block into the paths of those suffering most. I have watched in literal shock, as the Department of Veteran Affairs, the VA, prevent people from recovering their lives. It seems as if the system works against the veteran. I will cite two examples to start.
First is Jorge, who was injured in a truck which was hit on the Iraqi border. Jorge has severe injuries that have left him permanently disabled. The VA took nearly a year in processing the claim. The claim was straight forward with little or no interpretation needed. The veteran had suffered extreme injuries and was totally disabled. He had multiple broken bones up and down one complete side of his body. First the Army rated him 70% and placed him TDRL. Then the VA rated him 30%. The veteran received the letter of award. The veteran was happy, 70% plus 30% equaled 100%, right? Wrong! The VA had found his condition much less than totally disabling. However, the Social Security Administration found him 100% disabled. He in fact, four years later, is barely able to get around. To add insult to injury, late in 1994, the VA discovered he had received severance pay and has decided to stop his compensation until they recoup the funds paid. This is one month after the Army had sued to get the unused bonus back as he did not finish his reenlistment period. The Army almost went berserk over the $191.31 debt incurred because he was hit by a rocket in Iraq. At this point I would expect him to receive a bill for the Army health care he received. The Army almost went berserk over the $191.31. Upon his return to Columbus, Jorge found he could not get health care at the VA Clinic. He was not eligible. He had to go to Dayton or Fort Knox for each visit. There were many visits. His time meant nothing to the Army or the VA. We filed his claim and after nearly a year the VA approved it. But, every month he seems to get another letter from a government agency of some sort, wanting him to send them money.
Jorge is a warm and friendly man. His Spanish is excellent and his personality is as warm as the sun drenched beaches of his native Puerto Rico. You see, Jorge joined the Army to serve the nation he loves, the United States of America.
Enter Ellie. You could never find a bubblier, kind young lady. Ellie was a very happy reservist who loved her Army and drilled like there was no tomorrow. Ellie as many others went to Saudi. There she performed her job as she was trained. She worked for the Army as she worked for her self. After all she owned her own company at home. She knew the need to give 100% effort in the job. She gave 100% in her company and 100% for the Army. She is a proud American, proud to serve. She went to Desert Storm on a mission. While there, one of her subordinates was mangled in a pump; and she was exposed to something that changed her life forever.
Upon her return to CONUS she decided to get on with her business. Then suddenly out of the clear blue sky. Bang, she found herself very ill and unable to do anything about it. She went to the VA Clinic. It was to no avail. No cause could be found. Suddenly seizures set in and she became further disabled. Suddenly she had to be rushed to a local hospital for intensive care treatment. It was there that I visited with her. She signed releases of information and we went to work. I spoke with her physician at the hospital who explained that the condition was indeed very serious and that she had been extremely over medicated by accident.
It did not take but a few minutes on my part to discover that she had seen several doctors who had prescribed medications not knowing that other VA doctors were prescribing either the same or conflicting medications. You must understand none of the doctors knew what they were looking for. Our government has this habit of covering up the mistakes made on the troops. Well we had properly filed a claim for disability. Ellie went off to Washington to visit the VA facility that supposedly had all answers. Again, few answers but many more questions. Ellie was told that she was one sick soldier.
It seems as if the Bureaucrats look for ways to bring discomfort on the already disabled veteran. She was told by her doctors to get her affairs in order. She was now losing more weight than any one could believe. She went under 90 pounds. Then came a VA letter. "You have been found able to secure employment." She was stunned and so were we. I have spoken with each of her doctors. Not one of them agree with the VA decision. It is not a simple matter of calling the VA office in Cleveland; the Desert Storm claims are being worked in Louisville, Kentucky. No access with people we can work with. Well the Social Security Administration came through in championship form. Ellie was found to be 100% disabled. Now what makes this highly suspect is the fact she was examined seven times for reenlistment in the Army. Now Social Security recognizes her as 100% and the VA 20%. Someone is in a fog zone.
CHAPTER FOUR: A 1995 LETTER TO THE VA RATING BOARD
To the Rating Board:
RE: Name withheld due to privacy act
August 2, 1995 should go down in history as another fiasco with the Department of Defense (DoD). The announcement from the DoD has created much concern within the veteran community. It is with utter disgust, I listen to the media reports that "Persian Gulf Syndrome" is not in reality a problem. We have documented cases in Franklin County as one that prove their theory is incorrect. This is exactly what happened during and after Vietnam with Agent Orange. It used to seem as if the government would forget the veteran when he or she arrived home. Now the government goes out of their way, to prove they forget the veteran.
As it has been written in previous articles several of my clients have suffered great physical and emotional damage as a result of the tour in the Persian Gulf. As mentioned in the past "Desert Storm is now the Deserted Storm". Ellie, my client, has completely changed in physical appearance as well as physical health. She lost so much weight, she was prescribed supplements such as Ensure to stop the weight loss, she still fell to ninety pounds. It is again important to remember she had passed at least five reenlistment examinations. Yet, the VA only found her 20% service connected for seizures. According to the DoD her total hair loss was all in her head. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the total hair loss was not in her head, it was off her head. All this information was documented by St Ann's Hospital, the VA Outpatient Clinic in Columbus, the VA Medical Center in Chillicothe, as well as the VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The Washington VAMC trip was well documented by WBNS 10-TV in Columbus. It is impossible for the DoD or the VA to show any reason for Ellie having the problems she has encountered without pinpointing it on her exposure to some form of substance in the Persian Gulf. She was there. She had excellent health prior to going to the Persian Gulf. She has been sick every day since she returned.
We have several other formerly healthy individuals who are suffering from maladies similar as Ellie. Where is the answer to their problems? I'll tell you where their answers are; they are in the trash bin with all of the other difficult situations veterans are confronted with. It is so easy for Congress to pass watered down legislation and allow the VA to interpret it in any form they wish. It is even easier for the VA Legal Counsel to rule out help for needy veterans, knowing the veterans are nearly defenseless. It seems to many deals are made to protect the sacred budget, human beings are sacrificed. The sad part of the situation is so many non veterans are making decisions that literally destroy our comrades for life. It amazes me how the government can justify hiring so many non veterans for life altering decision making.
A few years ago, my letters and articles upset a few people in the Regional Office. It seemed as if they felt no one should question their decisions. Well it seems as if the decisions need questioned. I tell you, that this woman suffered within the first one year, from her separation of service, total disability. It is not her fault; doctors do not have the ability to diagnose her condition. Hire new doctors if you need to. Don't kill my client. Veterans made one sacrifice when they went off to war, one sacrifice is enough.
CHAPTER FIVE LEISHMANIASIS
The Assistant Secretary of Defense William Winkenwerder has issued a Memo regarding deadly conditions facing our troops in Iraq which I read October 9, 2003. This is a stern warning for all persons in Iraq to be aware of the deadly situation.
Leishmaniasis is a parasitic disease spread by the bite of the sandfly. This is a preventable disease native to Iraq. The Assistant Secretary has asked this be given to all distribution possible. It now looks like we are going to have problems with our returnees that could be catastrophic. One condition is cutaneous Leishmaniasis Baghdad boil) which creates terrible skin lesions which may look like STDs. This leaves permanent disfiguring. the other is visceral Leishmaniasis (Kala-azar) which can be fatal.
Overview, Causes, & Risk Factors Leishmaniasis are tiny protozoa. Their parasitic life cycle includes the sandfly and an appropriate host. Humans are one of those hosts. Leishmania infection can cause skin disease (called cutaneous Leishmaniasis).
It can affect the mucous membranes with a wide range of appearance, most frequently ulcers. It may cause skin lesions that resemble those of other diseases including cutaneous tuberculosis, syphilis, leprosy, skin cancer (basal cell carcinoma, and fungus infections.
Leishmania can also cause systemic disease (visceral Leishmaniasis) with fatal complications. When introduced into the body by the bite of a sandfly, the parasite migrates to the bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes.
Systemic infection in children usually begins suddenly with vomiting, diarrhea, fever, and cough. In adults, fever for 2 weeks to 2 months is accompanied by nonspecific symptoms, such as fatigue, weakness and loss of appetite Weakness increases as the disease progresses. The skin may become grayish, dark, dry, and flaky. The parasites damage the immune system by decreasing the numbers of disease-fighting cells so death usually results from complications (such as other infections) rather than from the disease itself. Death often occurs within 2 years.
Upon separation from active duty the Iraq veterans need to contact the nearest VA Environmental Physician as soon as possible!
It seems as if the issues affecting veterans health are short lived, that is until they start dying. Then it is to late. Hopefully this time all returnees would be examined. Since it will be volunteer and since many fail to get the word, it is unlikely all will be examined in time!
As far as insecticide goes, it has been reported to me that the military has advised Iraqi Freedom troops to soak their clothes in an insecticide. At least one soldiers wife advised me her husband broke out in a severe rash. Possibly that would be a good reason, to kill the sand flies and other deadly insects.
By the way this problem was known at the time of all of the critical health issues with PGW-I veterans. The government just failed to advise those folks who were coming up with severe and deadly medical problems.
To everyone who cares, many insecticides have carcinogens causing cancer in them. I am not aware of the type of insecticide used so am only asking a question: is the prevention as bad as the disease?
I wrote In Search Of The Truth For Vietnam Combat Veterans. A book about herbicides. I certainly hope I will not have a sequel about insecticides!
Meanwhile back at the VA Central Office....
CHAPTER SIX AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS AND PERSIAN GULF VETERANS
There is no doubt that we have all read the recent link of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Persian Gulf Veterans by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Institute of Medicine, which was released in early December 2001. However, the AMVETS has a much different twist than any other veteran organization.
On December 6, 2001 AMVETS State Service Officer David Barker and AMVET member of the Portsmouth (Ohio) Post 2352 appeared in the VA Regional Office in Huntington West Virginia for a video-conference Board of Veteran Appeals personal hearing.
The issue was the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and their unyielding belief that this condition was directly related to the exposure of chemicals and gases in the Persian Gulf. Only a few people believe there was much of a chance in this scheduled hearing, that the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) would grant benefits. After an hour of questions and responses the Hearing Officer stated she would review the transcript and any evidence currently in the file and give a response. Service Officer Barker asked if the NAS report would be finalized and the VA accepted the report, would it be considered? The Hearing Officer said if the report was released, the AMVETS must be sure to fax it quickly to the BVA.
The report was released December 13th and it was hand delivered by U.S. Congressman Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) to the BVA the same day. On December 13th 2001, one week after the teleconference, the very first award for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Persian Gulf Veterans was approved. The veteran was rated 100% service connected for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis linked to his Persian Gulf service, with the date of issue being February 1999.
CHAPTER SEVEN DEPLETED URANIUM
When Anthony Principi resigned as Secretary of the VA many of the veterans leaders were baffled. Last year some articles were published which may be a reason he left. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged February 2005 that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier that month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War ... The real reason for Mr. Principis departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the Gulf War Syndrome has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military'.
Cutting Edge has long said that the misnomer, "Gulf War Syndrome" was merely a cover for Depleted Uranium Munitions. The Pentagon has stonewalled for years as to what really caused "Gulf War Syndrome"; however, now a scientist with credentials too impressive to ignore has published a report stating authoritatively that this so-called "Syndrome" is nothing other than Depleted Uranium poisoning! - Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter 2/28/05
On February 14, 1997 I made a presentation in a meeting with Jesse Brown, then Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The meeting was in Cleveland and it was a round table conference with 7 people chosen to offer testimony regarding Persian Gulf War issues. We were allowed 7 minutes each. I took 12 minutes with permission granted in advance. We were required to supply a copy of our presentation in advance. My presentation on Undiagnosed Illness was adopted by the Secretary as policy, word for word.
The Federal government has a policy of not addressing unusual health issues, until forced to by the public. Generally the public does not concern itself with these unusual issues. It is the veterans organizations who force these type issues. However that becomes another major problem. Veterans historically do not stick together very well. Already I hear a few Vietnam vets complaining of the Iraqi veterans being given priority. Back in the 1980's I heard Korean war and WWII veterans complaining about the attention the Vietnam veterans were getting regarding Agent Orange and PTSD. The Korean war veterans before that we all but forgotten.
It is my belief that we ALL owe it to each other to make absolute effort to bring all of the health issues to the forefront.
Now we are in 2006 and it is 15 years since Desert Storm with our troops still in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, the Agent Orange issues are still not resolved. We have hundreds of thousands of peripheral neuropathy victims denied because further studies have not been requested from the National Academy of Sciences by the VA. I testified to that fact July 8, 2004 before the NAS research committee. As a result of my testimony a slight change was made regarding diabetes descriptions.
The point being we need more veterans active in the veteran organizations and the leaders of those organization pushing the Federal government to fulfill their obligations to those returning home with unexplained illnesses and addressing them in a timely manner. Not after death takes so many it brings attention to the media.
From the World Health Organization 2005 report: Depleted uranium.
The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU. The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter. DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass. The behavior of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium. Spent uranium fuel from nuclear reactors is sometimes reprocessed in plants for natural uranium enrichment. Some reactor-created radioisotopes can consequently contaminate the reprocessing equipment and the DU. Under these conditions another uranium isotope, 236U, may be present in the DU together with very small amounts of the transuranic elements plutonium, americium and neptunium and the fission product technetium-99. However, the additional radiation dose following intake of DU into the human body from these isotopes would be less than 1%.
Gulf War veterans returning from Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm display unusual levels of medical complaints that will be the subject of a research program at the Durham VA Medical Center. Three-year funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs is to start in January, 2006 with $180,000 to initiate animal studies into the possibility that prolonged exposure to chemicals such as pesticides and agents used to protect troops from chemical attacks might affect memory and learning. The research is also to explore possible drug therapies to reverse such problems. Meanwhile, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas would be designated a Gulf War illness research. The provision also requires VA to spend $75 million over the next five years on Gulf War illness research.
Just a thought, could it be...? Ol Dave was right in 97?
JP FUEL AND BENZENE
METABOLISM
Benzene can enter your body through your lungs when breathing contaminated air. It can also enter through your stomach and intestines when eating food or drinking water that contains benzene. Benzene can enter your body through skin contact with benzene-containing products such as gasoline or JP Fuel.
When you are exposed to high levels of JP fuel or benzene in air, about half of the benzene you breathe in leaves your body when you breathe out. The other half passes through the lining of your lungs and enters your bloodstream. Animal studies show that benzene taken in by eating or drinking contaminated foods behaves similarly in the body to benzene that enters through the lungs. A small amount of benzene will enter your body by passing through your skin and into your bloodstream during skin contact with benzene or benzene-containing products. Once in the bloodstream, benzene travels throughout your body and can be temporarily stored in the bone marrow and fat. Benzene is converted to products, called metabolites, in the liver and bone marrow. Some of the harmful effects of benzene exposure are believed to be caused by these metabolites. Most of the metabolites of benzene leave the body in the urine within 48 hours after exposure.
Health Effects
After exposure to JP fuel or benzene, several factors determine whether harmful health effects will occur and if they do what the type and severity of these health effects might be. These factors include the amount of benzene to which you are exposed and the length of time of the exposure. Most data involving effects of long-term exposure to benzene are from studies of workers employed in industries that make or use benzene. These workers were exposed to levels of benzene in air far greater than the levels normally encountered by the general population. Current levels of benzene in workplace air are much lower than in the past. Because of this reduction, and the availability of protective equipment such as respirators, fewer workers have symptoms of benzene poisoning.
Brief exposure (5-10 minutes) to very high levels of benzene in air (10,000-20,000 ppm) can result in death. Lower levels (700-3,000 ppm) can cause drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headaches, tremors, confusion, and unconsciousness. In most cases, people will stop feeling these effects when they stop being exposed and begin to breathe fresh air.
Eating or drinking foods containing high levels of benzene can cause vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid heart rate, coma, and death. The health effects that may result from eating or drinking foods containing lower levels of benzene are not known. If you spill benzene on your skin, it may cause redness and sores. Benzene in your eyes may cause general irritation and damage to your cornea.
Benzene causes problems in the blood. People who breathe benzene for long periods may experience harmful effects in the tissues that form blood cells, especially the bone marrow. These effects can disrupt normal blood production and cause a decrease in important blood components. A decrease in red blood cells can lead to anemia. Reduction in other components in the blood can cause excessive bleeding. Blood production may return to normal after exposure to benzene stops. Excessive exposure to benzene can be harmful to the immune system, increasing the chance for infection and perhaps lowering the body's defense against cancer.
Benzene can cause cancer of the blood-forming organs. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene is a known human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels of benzene in the air can cause cancer of the blood-forming organs. This condition is called leukemia.
Exposure to benzene has also been linked with damage to chromosomes which are the parts of cells that are responsible for the development of hereditary characteristics. Exposure to benzene may also be harmful to the reproductive organs. Some women workers who breathed high levels of benzene for many months had irregular menstrual periods. When examined, these women showed a decrease in the size of their ovaries. However, exact exposure levels were unknown, and the studies of these women did not prove that benzene caused these effects. It is not known what effects exposure to benzene might have on the developing fetus in pregnant women or on fertility in men. Studies with pregnant animals show that breathing benzene has harmful effects on the developing fetus. These effects include low birth weight, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage.
The health effects that might occur in humans following long-term exposure to food and water contaminated with benzene are not known. In animals, exposure to food or water contaminated with benzene can damage the blood and the immune system and can even cause cancer.
Parkinsons Disease could be caused by benzene or JP Fuel exposure. In the brain, two chemical messengers, dopamine and acetylcholine work in balance to transmit messages between nerve cells and muscles. These messages enable us to perform a range of co-coordinated movements. In people with Parkinson's this balance is upset because some of the dopamine-producing cells are lost. When about 80% of the dopamine has been lost, the symptoms of Parkinson's appear and the level of dopamine will continue to fall slowly over many years.
The reason why the loss of dopamine occurs in the brains of people with Parkinson's is currently unknown. Most researchers believe it is likely that many factorsplay a role in causing Parkinson's. Areas of research into the cause include genetics, environmental factors and viruses. If this is secondary to JP fuel exposure, as a result it will take years for the condition to manifest itself. There would be no symptoms shown while in service.
WHAT IT TAKES IS A LITTLE COURAGE (Agent Orange!)
I was asked a question by a USAF veteran who served in Thailand in the late 1960's early 70' period, should there be a concern of cancer? Recently he learned of cancers being reported in USAF veterans, who were stationed in Thailand, during the Vietnam war. His question "could these veterans have been exposed to certain herbicides we generally refer to as Agent Orange?" My answer "there is certainly concern."
The "powers that be" since my earliest days of being involved with Agent Orange issues have attempted to deny or limit the dangers of Agent Orange. It seems as if every person who tried to bring the dangers of dioxin poisoning of American troops in Southeast Asia, to the forefront was discredited by the VA, some veterans groups and the various political administrations. This was both Democrats and Republicans as well.
In 1977 at the Whitehall VFW Post 8794 (Columbus Ohio) we organized a group to assist Vietnam veterans who were having problems with unusual conditions in very young adults. We met with strong opposition from some veterans and equal strong support from others.
Involved with that group were several veterans who did not go "in-country" but were in Thailand. Of those who were in Thailand several had similar problems as those who were "in-country" Vietnam. A common thread was they claimed to have been working on C-130's. These C-130's may have or may not have had Agent Orange aboard. I attempted to obtain direct answers but could never link an individual veteran with a specific aircraft. Records of maintenance were not available.
The Agent Orange issue nearly got me fired in 1984. After I had published my first article regarding Agent Orange in 1983. The essay is chapter 2 of my book IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR THE VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN. "Poison: Agent Orange" was the article involved.
After the article was published in the OHIO AMVET News, the Veterans Service Office director asked me if I was the author of the article. He was holding the paper and pointing to my name. The director then read the title of the article, my name and stated it included Franklin County VSO. He said it was wrong for me to link the office with false information and accused me of "printing lies" he then told me if he saw my name linked with the "trash" again he would fire me. The veterans commission supported his position. The next several articles appeared in the Ohio VFW, Ohio AMVETS and VVA paper were without my by-line. It was only after he retired did my by-lines appear again.
During the 1980's many of my fellow VSO's avoided being seen with me at meetings. Although many would catch me when others were not around to ask questions regarding Agent Orange. Over the next decade, as the issues I pushed in the late 1970's and early 80's, began to be recognized as residuals of Agent Orange, things changed quite a bit. A few of the employees in the VA Regional Office even began sending their contacts to me for representation.
In my opinion, as a result of early desire to "nip it in the bud" as Barney Fife used to say, any USAF comparison was destroyed. Operation Ranch Hand was flawed when I read it in the 1980's. I said so in print, in 1983. In the year 2000, the USAF admitted 17 years after my article; the Operation Ranch Hand was indeed flawed.
I honestly believe people were at least exposed to Agent Orange in Thailand by direct contact with equipment used in spraying missions. I do not have any evidence there was any Agent Orange sprayed in the area; but, I am not so sure, there was no Agent Orange sprayed in or around Thailand either. It is an unanswered issue.
AGENT ORANGE IN KOREA
The VA has received a listing from the Defense Department of locations outside of Viet Nam where Agent Orange was used or tested over a number of years. The information gives periods of time, locations and chemicals used. It does not contain units involved or individual identifying information.
The listings are almost exclusively Army records although there are an extremely limited number of Navy and Air Force records. These listings relate only to chemical efficacy testing and/or operational testing. The records do not refer to the use of Agent Orange or other chemicals in routine base maintenance activities such as spraying along railroad tracks, weed control on rifle ranges, etc. Information on such use does not exist. VA will develop for proof of exposure for claims for disabilities resulting from Agent Orange exposure outside of Viet Nam.
VA does have significant information regarding Agent Orange use in Korea along the DMZ. DoD has confirmed that Agent Orange was used from April 1968 up through July 1969 along the DMZ. DoD defoliated the fields of fire between the front line defensive positions and the south barrier fence. The size of the treated area was a strip of lane 151 miles long and up to 350 yards wide from the fence to north of the "civilian control line." There is no indication that herbicide was sprayed in the DMZ itself.
Herbicides were applied through hand spraying and by hand distribution of pelletized herbicides. Although restrictions were put in place to limit potential for spray drift, run-off, and damage to food crops, records indicate that effects of spraying were sometimes observed as far as 200 meters down wind.
Units in the area during the period of use of herbicide were as follows: The four combat brigades of the 2nd Infantry Division. This includes the following units: a) 1-38 Infantry b) 2-38 Infantry c) 1-23 Infantry d) 2-23 Infantry e) 3-23 Infantry f) 3-32 Infantry g) 109th Infantry h) 209th Infantry i) 1-72 Armor j) 2-72 Armor k) 4-7th Cavalry. 3rd Brigade of the 7th. Infantry Division. This includes the following units: a) 1-17th Infantry b) 2-17th Infantry c) 1-73 Armor d) 2-10th Cavalry. Field Artillery, Signal and Engineer troops were supplied as support personnel as required. The estimated number of exposed personnel is 12,056.
Unlike Viet Nam, exposure to Agent Orange is not presumed for veterans who served in Korea. Claims for compensation for disabilities resulting from Agent Orange exposure from veterans who served in Korea during this period will be developed for evidence of exposure. If the veteran was exposed the presumptive conditions found for Agent Orange exposure apply.
IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR THE VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN a short book
This information is for: those who have found it difficult to obtain the truth, from their government.
THE ENEMY OF THE SKY
There has been much discussion in regards to the use of herbicide in the Republic of Vietnam. Some people have gone so far as to make fun of those exposed to this type of defoliant. Some people even attempted to downplay the affect on the obviously affected. Separate agencies of the United States government have made entirely different decisions regarding the danger involved.
Since 1950, most of the chemical industry has known the toxic effect of the combination of the two main ingredients of the herbicide we now call AGENT ORANGE. If the manufacturing of the herbicide was not carefully controlled, a dioxin was produced called contaminate TCDD. This dioxin was extremely dangerous and it was stated by scientists that it caused severe damage to animal life. The Agent Orange produced for the use in Vietnam had 30-40 parts per million of the contaminant.
Federal regulations in regard to this herbicide had been discussed a number of times between 1948 and 1951. It was registered in 1948. In 1951 the military's choice was to use an equal mixture of the developed mixtures of BUTYL ESTERS of the chemical 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T. The effectiveness of this mixture was tested in a four mile square at Fort Drum, NY. During February 1961 the United States conducted a large scale application in Vietnam.
The chemical was never tested for its toxic effects by the government. The USDA, which was responsible for its testing, left the decision up to the chemical companies to determine the safety of the people who would be exposed, the Americans in combat! For this chemical was used to clear areas our fighting forces were protecting. The defoliant was used to benefit our side.
Several years after the use of this herbicide began; the EPA tested it for use in the United States by the companies that wished to clear right of ways for power companies and other assorted reasons. The EPA came up with startling requirements: the TCDD could not exceed 1 ppm (part per million); the material could not be applied more than once per year; the product could not be used near food grown for human consumption; it could not be used near streams or ponds where animals consumed by humans would drink; and strict safety equipment would be worn to protect those who applied the material. Meanwhile in 1969 OSHA came down on the manufacturing of this chemical in guidelines, which were closely followed, both in the application and manufacturing in the United States.
We now must remember the product to be used in the USA contained 1 ppm while the product in Vietnam contained 30-40 ppm. This deadly, to some forms of animal life, chemical was being dropped, on our own soldiers, sailors, and marines in Vietnam on a regular basis, most often as once per quarter rather than annually. We have evidence that shows mistakes in the mixing of Agent Orange that on some applications the pure concentrate was applied. One example was at Long Binh in March 1969. The Duty Officers Log showed that 300 gallons of uncut material was sprayed in the watershed area. The men and women in the area were never notified of the over spray. The herbicide was sprayed by helicopter, not an airplane; thus, never included in Ranch Hand reports.
In a seldom spoken of disposal of the Agent Orange at the Johnston Atoll, years after the war was finished, the Operation Ranch Hand completed its final job in the herbicide program involving Agent Orange. The remaining supply of the chemicals were burned on the island, carefully monitored by Battelle Columbus Laboratories. The in charge officers made sure every person involved wore protective gear. Every safety precaution was taken, and well should have been taken, just as they should have done in Vietnam but didn't. One of the Battelle employees involved in the project informed me the chemical was considered hazardous and was treated as such by the USAF (Operation Ranch Hand). These are the same people (USAF), who maintain even today there were no harmful effects.
Again, we have various agencies claiming different positions on the same Agent Orange issues. The recent Center for Disease Control (CDC) studies in regard to Vietnam veterans (7,942) compared to non-Vietnam veterans (7,364) have shown some striking notations in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, May 13, 1988 and thus we will not quote. We will advise you that after reading the complete article we have noted the CDC failed to have adequate assets to examine rare cancers. The report also stated on page 2,712 of volume 259, number 18 that they examined a few who had been heavily exposed to the herbicide. There was a notable difference in sperm count. Overall, the report was one of anti-selection of what was needed, those that were exposed to the herbicide.
It is now time for Congress to face the facts, the Vietnam war started years before the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The war powers act invoked for President Johnson was after the fact. Agent Orange was used in Vietnam in early 1961 and Americans were exposed on that date and thereafter until its use was discontinued and effect removed.
POISON: AGENT ORANGE
In regards to the question of toxic poison the substance which is commonly referred to as "Agent Orange", which is the result of exposure to TCDD or 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D when they are combined into one product.
Since 1950 most of the chemical industry has known that large quantities of TCDD may be formed as a by-product of the 2, 4, 5-T manufacturing process if the technical procedures were not carefully controlled. At one time, 2, 4, 5-T which contained 30-40 ppm of TCDD was produced. After concern was raised in 1969, regarding the extremely toxic effects of TCDD, the manufacturing process was changed and by 1971 industry had reduced TCDD content in commercial samples to near 1 ppm, and several foreign countries now produced commercial 2, 4, 5-T containing less than 0.5 ppm of TCDD. The combination of 2, 4, 5-T and 2, 4-D is Agent Orange.
Federal regulations in regard to the herbicide 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD have been discussed a number of times since 1948 when it was registered in March of that year. By 1951, tests determined the herbicide of choice for military defoliant was an equal mixture of butyl esters of 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T. The effectiveness of this formulation was established in 1959 in a large scale test over four square miles at Fort Drum, New York. In 1961 the D.O.D. conducted large scale aerial application in Southeast Asia.
First, the chemical was under the jurisdiction of the USDA. Later the function was transferred to the EPA. On April 13, 1966 the USDA and the EPA did in fact announce in the FEDERAL REGISTER the abolition of the "no." (of drug and chemical registration), as scientifically unattainable. Future registrations were to be granted on the basis of either negligible residue or permissible residue. Industry was given until December 31, 1967 to comply by obtaining tolerances for residues of 2, 4, 5-T in all treated food, feed products and by-products. On May 1, 1971 the EPA canceled all 2, 4, 5,-T uses on food crops that were intended for human consumption. Dow & Hercules chemical companies filed against the action so they could continue production of the herbicide. The agreement was reached that the uses of 2, 4, 5-T could include forests, range land, and rights of way provided the TCDD was limited to 1 ppm contamination. The agreement as well stated the application would not be more than once per year, and the proper caution be made that it would not come into contact with humans. MEANWHILE IN VIETNAM THE SPRAY OF THE STRONGER HERBICIDE CONTINUED TO FALL ON OUR OWN DEFENDERS, the American Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman. What we refer to as TCDD is a dioxin consisting of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD: tetrachlor isomer of p-dibenzo dioxin: TCDD. It has been called the most lethal synthetic chemical known to man; but, it is only one group of related aromatic, tricyclic compounds.
Why did the U.S. not keep accurate records in the early applications of the herbicides? The toxic nature of defoliates was known long before the TCDD was applied on a regular basis. To also illustrate my point, the Army made entries in the "DUTY OFFICERS LOG" on the errors often committed in spraying, the persons in those areas were never notified of a possible problem arising in the future, when in fact the Army admitted on form DA 1594, dated March 1969, that an uncut supply of Agent Orange in the amount of 300 gallons was applied in pure form. IT CLEARLY STATED IN ALL INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE MATERIAL MUST BE "CUT" BY EITHER DIESEL FUEL OR WATER! The report stated that the "ORANGE CODE" was applied directly into the watersheds (potable water supply). The report continues, "ORANGE HERBICIDE has a LD 50 for rats of approximately 500mg/kg of body weight, as compared to aspirin (1750mg/kg) and DDT (130mg/kg). Toxicological data against human being is relatively lacking". Why were the military personnel not advised of the toxic nature of the substance used in the application? One answer may be a total lack of concern for the far reaching affects and only the immediate effect was considered.
In a report (A VIDF-GC) as of 10 February 1969, OPERATION REPORT FOR QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING 31 JANUARY 1969, the following is stated: "the Division has some difficulty in obtaining approval for the use of herbicides from the Quang Tin Province Chief. Personnel of the Division Chemical Section defoliated much of the CLDC perimeter in November, and are presently engaged in completing coverage". As we receive reports from the U.S. Army & Joint Services Environmental Support Group, we compare these to the data we have found through research from many sources. The picture is becoming clear, if the use and manner of the substance known as Agent Orange were put on trial the verdict would be guilty!
One of the major problems with the release of information to the public in regards to the chemical company accidents in private industry is the fact these companies may or may not release the information on what actually happened. Due to the liability of the accident the situation may be covered up. To give an example: a major spill of dioxin (Agent Orange formula, exactly) in a chemical plant in Nitro, West Virginia in 1949, has been referred to many times by industry and government alike, no significant changes. However, the scientists and the doctors involved in each and every report were employed by the company. TCDD exposure will cause death in animals and humans, depending on the exposure time and amount. It has been proven and accepted by the scientific community that the symptomatology and effects induced by a wide range of factors including dosage, and duration of exposure, presence of other toxic chemicals and the age, sex, and reproductive status of the exposed. The one isolated feature of TCDD from other chemicals is that of the death of the animal exposed may be delayed for several weeks, the cause of death may not be apparent in many species even with an autopsy or tissue examination. Dow Chemical was aware since 1950 of the high possibility that the severely acnegenic impurities were formed in TCP, as the Germans had isolated the dioxin. Dow denied the toxic facts and reported they monitored the situation and the 2, 4; 5-T was absolutely non-toxic. By 1965 Dow confirmed the toxic contaminant was TCDD, and developed a gas chromatographic technique sensitive to 1 ppm of TCDD in TCP 2, 4, 5-T. Fact: THE USDA DID NOT DO TESTS, they relied on chemical firms. Our government continued to spray in Vietnam with no regard to the evidence being shown in private, as well as, government research.
In a review of reports published in September 1978 from OSHA, I have compared that specific data with the position of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Air Force studies, as well as other government agencies. If you will compare the prior data I have submitted, you will see conflicting information from the same government. To briefly quote from OSHA:
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR 2, 4, 5-T.
INTRODUCTION
This guideline is intended as a source of information for employees, employers, physicians, industrial hygienists and other occupational health professionals who may have a need for such information. It does not attempt to present all data; rather it presents information and data in summary form.
Permissible Exposure Limit
The current OSHA standard for 2, 4, 5-T is 10 milligrams of 2, 4, 5-T per cubic meter of air (mg/, m3) average over an eight hour work shift.
Health Hazard Information
Routes Of Exposure
2, 4, 5-T can affect the body if it is inhaled or if it comes into contact with the eyes or skin. It can also affect the body if it is swallowed.
Effects Of Overexposure
Exposure to 2, 4, 5-T may cause abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and blood in the stool. It may also cause acne and liver damage. Animal experiments have shown these contaminants may produce damage in unborn rats.
Reporting Signs and Symptoms
A physician should be contacted if anyone develops any signs or symptoms and suspect that they are caused by exposure to 2, 4, 5-T.
Summary of Toxicology
2, 4, 5-T (2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) is of low toxicity. The oral LD50 for dogs is in the range of 100/mg/kg or higher; effects are limited to a slight to moderate stiffness in the hind legs with the development of ataxia. Contaminants of commercial preparations of 2,4,5-T have been 2,3,6,7-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), a potent acnegenic agent which is hepatotoxic in animals; they are presented as unwanted side products of synthesis of 2,4,5-T. In a study of 73 workers in a 2,4,5-T manufacturing plant, 13 had moderate to severe acne from dermatitis (chloracne) and 22 had gastrointestinal complaints, such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, liver dysfunction was found; although no air samples results were reported, the chloracne was thought to be a result of exposure to TCDD. 2, 4, 5-T dust is a slight irritant of the skin.
Chemical and Physical Properties
Physical Data
1. Molecular weight: 255.5
2. Boiling point (760 mm Hg); Decomposes above melting point
3. Specific gravity (water=1): Greater
4. Vapor Density (air+1 at boiling point of 2, 4, 5-T): Not applicable
5. Melting point: 158 Celsius (316 Fahrenheit) decomposition
There is also a similar report on 2, 4-D.
SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION
Formula: Cl2C6H3OCH2COOH
Synonyms: 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Appearance and odor: Colorless and odorless solid
PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT
The 1978 OSHA standard was set at 10mg per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight hour work shift.
HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
ROUTES OF EXPOSURE
2, 4-D can affect the body if it is inhaled, contacts the skin or eyes or swallowed. It may enter through the skin.
EFFECTS OF (OVER) EXPOSURE
1. Short term may cause weakness, stupor, muscle twitching and convulsions. It may
cause a rash and may cause liver damage
. 2. Long term is not known; the issue is clouded by politics.
3. Exposure requires a physician.
SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGY
2, 4-D dust causes signs of both hypo- and hyper excitation of the central nervous system in animals. Sudden death is possible in massive doses. I have no evidence in any death of a human by ventricular fibrillation. Persons or animals exposed to massive dosages would have convulsions of a violent nature.
Contact on the skin will cause dermatitis.
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
PHYSICAL DATA
1. Molecular weight: 212
2. Boiling point (760 mm Hg): Decomposes
3. Specific gravity (water=1): 1.1(estimated)
4. Vapor density (air=1 at boiling point of 2, 4-D): 7.63
5. Melting point 140C (248 F)
6. Vapor pressure at 20C (68 F): Essentially zero
7. Solubility in water, at 20C (68 F): 0.07ppm
8. Evaporation rate (butyl acetate=1): N/A
REACTIVITY: contact with strong oxidizers may cause fires and explosions.
A very important note: in 1978 OSHA report we have just quoted also stated the following "Parenteral administration to dogs has caused sneezing, lacrimation, and rubbing of the eyes, along with gastrointestinal disturbances." In 1991 it was learned that dogs exposed to 2, 4-D used in normal weed control in backyard America became victims of cancer at unusually high rates.
SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA
There are finally new rules falling into place as guidelines for the VA to adjudicate claims related to exposure to Agent Orange. It seems as if it has been a major undertaking for the VA to finally recognize the devastation placed upon the victims of exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. We need to understand that the following subject, soft tissue sarcoma, is one of many subjects under consideration. The VA has moved painfully slow in the quest to make things right for the affected veterans. In mid 1992 I saw two claims under close scrutiny for soft tissue sarcomas, one was denied although it seems to meet the following criteria. The claim was actually to be approved; but there was a question of this condition not being one of the approved cancers. Thus, the veteran's widow must wait until the National Academy of Science and the VA reach an accord. We must remember the VA cannot give the veteran anything they are not required by law to give.
In order to prove disability (or death) compensation for soft tissue sarcoma under the new rule, the veteran or survivor must show service in Vietnam, the waters off shore, (which have found to have an extremely high risk factor) or other duty in Vietnam areas that may have reason to support a claim including visitation to Vietnam. Also required is that the veteran first developed soft tissue sarcoma after he or she was in Vietnam. There is no requirement under this set of rules to prove exposure to herbicides including Agent Orange. This serves a two fold purpose: first, the VA still does not admit Agent Orange causes any problem other than chloracne; second, it can be used to prevent blanket claims of exposure and cause conditions yet undetected. The following are conditions considered as soft tissue sarcoma: adult fibro sarcoma; dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans; malignant fibrous histiocytoma; liposarcoma; leiomyosarcoma; epithelioid leiomyosarcoma (malignant leiomyoblastoma); rhabdomyosarcoma; ectomesenchymoma; angiosarcoma (hemangiosarcoma and lymphangiosarcoma); proliferating (systematic) angio endotheliomatosis; malignant glomus tumor; malignant hemangiopericytoma; synovial sarcoma; malignant giant
cell tumor of the tendon sheath; malignant schwanna; malignant mesenchymoma; malignant granular cell tumor; alveolar soft tissue sarcoma, epithelioid sarcoma; clear cell sarcoma of tendons and aponeuroses. These are listed, but it by no means excludes the possibility of others being accepted and added as accepted conditions. We must remember the VA will accept only those conditions mandated to them, it is the law. It will be to our advantage to check each and every condition, prior to submittal of a claim, so that we understand the exact relationship of the soft tissue sarcoma and its direct relationship with the exposure to Agent Orange.
It would seem as if with all of the publicity given to the new regulations regarding AGENT ORANGE, we would be seeing a tremendous explosion of veterans being awarded benefits. Instead we see a dribble coming down from the IVORY TOWER allowing a select few (albeit good guys) awards for very rare conditions; thus, preventing a severe hit on the 'beloved budget' that seems to control everything in Washington, D.C. To cite an example of nit picking, the VA had approved "Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma" yet it did not consider Hodgkin's Disease, why we asked, and the answers given were vague indeed, (that is if you got an answer). The VA was to be under the gun on this issue as Hodgkin's Disease has similar frequency rate as Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma, although somewhat less. To define the two in comparative facts: Hodgkin's Disease is a chronic disease with lymphoreticular proliferation of unknown cause that may be present in localized or disseminated form. Annually in the USA, 5,000 to 6,000 new cases are diagnosed. The male to female ratio is 1.4 to 1. Peaks in age have been age 34 and age 54. Sound like a familiar age group? Considering the research I used in this chapter is the MERCK MANUAL 1982 EDITION. It is apparent the ages fall into the Vietnam veteran age groupings. The most common staging system is the Ann Arbor method. Stage I: disease limited to one anatomic lymph node region. Stage II: involving two or more anatomic lymph nodes on the same side of the diaphragm. Stage III: disease on both sides of the diaphragm involving lymph nodes of the spleen. Stage IV: extranodal involvement, such as bone marrow, lung or liver.
Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma is a heterogeneous group of diseases, consisting of neoplastic proliferation of lymphoid cells that usually disseminate throughout the body. The terms we have used in the past lymph sarcoma and reticulum cell sarcoma have been replaced by newer terms. Change of the names has made no difference in the progression of the disease. Their courses vary from rapidly fatal to very indolent and initially well tolerated. The classifications are: (1) malignant lymphoma undifferentiated Burketts type or non Burketts (allomorphic type); (2) malignant lymphoma, histolytic; (3) malignant lymphoma, lymphocyte (well differentiated) or (4) poorly differentiated; (5) malignant lymphoma, lymphoblast. The classes are further divided into nodular or diffuse except for 1 and 5 which only appear in a diffuse pattern. Nodular involvement includes cases in which fibrous strands separate the lymphoma infiltrate into nodules. Non Hodgkin's lymphomas must be differentiated from Hodgkin's disease, and other causes of lymphadenopathy. There are 7,000 to 8,000 new cases per year. Lymphoma is a heterogeneous group of neoplasms arising in the reticuloendothelial and lymphatic systems. The major types are described above, there are several other forms not discussed. Neither the VA or any other agency had disclosed information that would lead anyone to believe that Hodgkin's disease is any less a residual of exposure to Agent Orange than non Hodgkin's lymphoma. It seems as if the VA has found another way to admit partial benefits to some Vietnam veterans while still denying benefits to equal or more amounts of other veterans.
BACK TO MAIN PAGE
______________________________________**********
SHAM OR SHAME: AGENT ORANGE
Many veterans hopes are riding high on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs decisions. The January 4, 1994 decision to allow presumptive service connection for association of certain additional conditions as being sufficient evidence of association between exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam and the relationship between exposure and multiple myeloma. It was strongly stated that all studies did not support the decision. However, one cited study showed a clear association between herbicides and multiple myeloma. The Federal Register Vol 59, no. 23 dated February 3, 1994 stated "the Secretary has determined that there is positive association between herbicides and multiple myeloma that manifests itself to a degree of 10% at any time after exposure." Also accepted for service connection was "respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea)". As quoted from the same Federal Register.
After showing acceptance of those few conditions, the Secretary then ruled out twenty conditions which he determined were not in close relationship to exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam. The first of those conditions that should be addressed is prostate cancer. The Secretary accepted multiple myeloma and respiratory cancers; yet included in the same paragraph indicating suggestive evidence of an association (Albeit Limited), was prostate cancer. To quote the study, Veterans and Agent Orange-Health Effects of Herbicides used in Vietnam (prepublication copy) sent to me August 18, 1993. I quote in part "evidence is suggestive of an association between herbicides and the outcome but is limited because chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with confidence. For example, at least one high-quality study shows a positive association, but the results of other studies are inconsistent. There is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between the exposure to herbicides and the following health outcomes: respiratory cancers (lung, larynx, trachea), prostate cancer, multiple myeloma." This is a direct quote from page 6 of the executive summary.
Since receiving both the executive summary as well as the main text of the study, I have studied both. Also, I have had limited discussions with a Medical Biochemist, employed as a Professor at the Ohio State University. This Professor was involved in the study. Our exchange of information has solidified my position regarding the selective acceptance of those conditions that may be politically correct. The reason of my contention of political correctness is the decision will convince many Vietnam veterans that the Department of Veterans Affairs is recognizing Agent Orange as the killer it is; yet, keep the majority of our veterans away from service connection. My Associate the Medical-Biochemist, has stated: "Agriculture studies have show some connection to prostate cancer. Prostate cancer has been known as a disease of older men. Pressure must be maintained for studies of Vietnam veterans to be continued." He further stated "I feel if the Secretary accepted multiple myeloma and respiratory cancers, he certainly should have included prostate cancer." These quotes show that a highly regarded source from Ohio State University, Medical Biochemistry Department, who was directly involved with testimony before the academy agrees with the point of prostate cancer should not be excluded at this time.
It is certain that all cancers are not a result of exposure to herbicides. It is also certain that many are a direct result of exposure. It would seem logical to accept as fact those which evidence has proven. To accept those conditions which have suggestive evidence of association; while continuing the studies on the others that may well be suspect. This is not a time to allow political expedience to destroy decades of work on the part of a loyal few believers who have pressed this once dead issue into acceptance on the part of all veterans regardless of their exposure or even period of service.
THE SAGA CONTINUES
Friday morning, the Ides of March, 1996 I received a ten page fax of long awaited news. The National Academy of Science had released its newest studies. These are of course not the final, just the newest. Although to some it may seem like very little; but, to others such as I, it is BIG ground being broken. If you have followed my writings over the past fifteen years you will remember this ground was covered in the late 80's. In an earlier of writings, there was an essay: The Verdict is in: Guilty which is chapter five of my book IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR THE VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN. In that essay it was stated the proof had surfaced regarding birth defects in children of exposed veterans. As a matter of fact in 1984, I had attempted to do a survey of Vietnam veterans exposed to herbicides, and their offspring. This project was through the VFW MAGAZINE. It was not a successful venture as I only received 103 responses out of approximately 250,000 Vietnam veterans who were members at that time. Not getting exactly what I wanted from that project, I sought other sources. Those sources included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Health Safety Administration (OSHA), the Battelle Institute, The Ohio State University Medical and Biochemistry Department, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Their resources were far better than mine, with the exception of the CDC. I challenged the CDC nearly a decade ago when they claimed they could not find 1,100 exposed Vietnam veterans for sample studies. My critique then, as it is now, I had personally filed that many claims by 1988 in one county. How could the CDC claim they could not find 1,100 exposed Vietnam veterans in the whole country? However, I did find much valuable information from the other mentioned sources. In the article, Poison: Agent Orange the issues of birth defects was mentioned. The latest report release from the NAS now states the possibility of a link of exposed to dioxin veterans, to increased risk of Spina Bifida in their offspring. The case studies give support to that position. I still maintain there are many other birth defects as a result of the exposure. I also understand, this is a step by step process and for the first time in our history, it seems as if we actually have a champion in our corner. It important for all of us to remember, it is not over until the final decisions are made into the rules the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) operates under.
It must be said to all interested; two years before when the first study was released, watered down rules came into effect. Secretary of the VA, Mr. Jesse Brown removed the words prostate cancer from the middle of a sentence. To add irony to the newest report the prostate cancer words were retained by the NAS. It seems as if those doctors know more about cancer than Secretary Brown. I personally have written Secretary Brown of that foul decision. I would hope others would have done the same. It seemed as if the Secretary was exempt from negative critique of many of the veteran groups. He was an great leader of the DAV. He was an excellent Secretary as well.
I have attended over 100 funerals, or wakes of veterans; who died of Agent Orange related conditions. These include prostate cancer. What does it take to get the attention of the powers that be? Prostate cancer is very uncommon in men under age 55; yet many have died from that condition. Meanwhile we struggle for facts. When fact are presented they are clouded by politics. We need to voice our opinions, while we still have the right.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
The Enemy Of The Sky and Poison: AGENT ORANGE are similar in content. Please list the similar points made in regards to the substance involved. This should include the chemical formula as well as the chemical common name of dioxin.
_______________
_________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Now compare the report from the Center for Disease Control with the Battelle Columbus Laboratories.
_________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Please describe the lesson learned by the incident at Long Binh and exactly what happened as a result of the error.
_________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Please define tetrachlor dibenzo-p-dioxin.
_________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
In Agent Orange Update 1992 we compared what two conditions?
___________________
__________________________. Is this an indication of fairness to all exposed Vietnam veterans? Why?
_______________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Describe hepatotoxic.
____________________________________________________________ Please list every condition you have that affects your health that is not caused by trauma or congenital defects that bothered you prior to your tour in Vietnam. (Please use a separate sheet of paper), start your message with the following words "I am affected by the following conditions as a residual of my exposure to Agent Orange:
ARE THEY SERIOUS?
In reference to the unusual coincidence of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) of Atlanta, Georgia, releasing their scientific information that Agent Orange did not cause cancer, and that the same day Secretary Derwinski stating the VA would recognize non Hodgkin's lymphoma, reminds one of a syndicated columnist, Mary McGrory claiming the Agent Orange issue was politics (the article appeared in the Columbus Dispatch in 1989). It may well be politics; but, not as the writer indicated, as it is not politics to give justice to a Vietnam veteran who has lost his or her health as a result of actions taken by their own government in fighting a war with no intention to win. It is not politics to assist families of those who died as a result of the exposure to Agent Orange. It is politics to suppress veterans of the most unpopular war in the history of the United States. It is obvious and has been obvious for a long time that Agent Orange contains dioxin. When Ronald Reagan was President, he signed into law the Agent Orange/Ionization Radiation Act. At the time the act was put into law, it had been considerably watered down by political hacks, while major veteran organizations looked on with no real action coming forth to defend their members who had been exposed. The bill contained provisions to cover soft tissue sarcoma, PCT a liver condition, as well as chloracne which was already recognized. Between the VA and the OMB and all of the other initialed organizations, the bill was watered down and stripped of any meaning and again we were left with chloracne, which we had prior to the legislation.
This led many to believe the government had no intention of living up to its obligation they had promised the veterans when they served the country. There is very little difference in the effects of non Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease; they both may have the same end result, death. A main difference between the two conditions is the way it attacks the lymph glands and spreads soft tissue sarcoma.
Quite suddenly on Friday, May 18, 1990, it was announced in the WASHINGTON POST headline "AGENT ORANGE MAY BE LINKED TO CANCER IN VETS, U.S. ADMITS". To offer a quote from the article "The government yesterday acknowledged for the first time the Vietnam war may have caused cancers among the 3.1 million U.S. military personnel who served in Southeast Asia." The article which gave hope to many continued later "Derwinski's decision will allow the department to offer compensation to about 1,100 Vietnam veterans or their survivors at a cost of about $8 million per year." This is silly! The VA admits in the same breath "may have caused cancers among the 3.1 million" and then offer compensation to "about 1,100 Vietnam veterans or their survivors." This is no way to solve the problems caused by Agent Orange residuals. It may well be a beginning, it certainly is no settlement. In my first seven years of filing claims for Agent Orange benefits I had filed over 1,100 claims in one form or another related to Agent Orange. Of course some of the claims were not valid; but many of the claims were valid. If one Veterans Service Officer files 1,100 (or more), what about the others throughout our land? Less than .0004 percent, are they serious?
THE VERDICT IS IN: GUILTY!
Agent Orange went to trial in San Francisco and was found guilty. On May 3, 1989 in the U.S. District Court, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson held that former Veterans Administration head, Thomas K. Turnage had imposed "an impermissibly demanding test" for determining whether an ailment could be linked to dioxin. A position many of us had stated for over a decade. The ruling was not appealed by the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This has opened the doors for new opportunities for those who have been maimed by this, the deadliest of man made synthetic chemical compounds, TCDD or as we know it Agent Orange. Multiple Thousands of claims nearly 34,000, at that time had been denied over the years.
We have known since the late 60's the compound was extremely dangerous. In 1968 the U.S. banned the use of these herbicides for use in this country except in very limited situations, where control would prevent any humans involved would not be in any physical contact with the substance, and the spray areas would be limited to areas where food for human consumption would not be found. The EPA went so far as to restrict the spray to areas no more than once per year and no contact to be made by the personnel involved". The EPA had also enforced the OSHA ruling the compound not contain more than 1 ppm of dioxin. Remember this is the same product being used at that time in Vietnam at 30-40 ppm. In Vietnam the product was used with absolute disregard for the U.S. personnel involved.
We have all read the horror stories of those in OPERATION RANCH HAND who have stated they washed their hands in the substance and even threw it on one another in horseplay. If this is true, where was common sense and safety? It still baffles many today, if the claims of hand washing or the horseplay were real or imagined. It doesn't make sense that a sane person would involve themselves in such acts with a chemical which looked and smelled like a bottle of ORTHO WEED B GON (weed killer), which the ORTHO WEED B GON is only one half of the deadly compound.
Since the arguments have been present over such a long period of time, we have found that some of the herbicides used contained arsenic, a substance we would avoid in hand washing or playing. It would be best for the veteran community to avoid the shock treatments used to gain attention and stick to the issues. This is a very serious matter and should be given full attention by those directly under the spray; the deformed offspring; also, those whose sons and daughters died as a result, including widows and orphans of victims. Early in 1990, one of the nurses stationed at Long Binh, RVN, had reopened her claim for the residuals of Agent Orange. For those in the various organizations who do not take the problem serious, please contact Penny. Penny was very active, until 1989, in the Vietnam Veterans Of America, Chapter 16. In early 1989 she came apart at the seams, so to speak, in a physical sense. She has suffered from: skin disorders, urinary tract disorders, female organ problems, lumps where lumps do not belong and general failing health. Why? The answer is simple: she was stationed at Long Binh and exposed to Agent Orange in the big mistake!
In the first thirty days (June 1989) after the ruling in District Court, I did assist seventy-one veterans in reopening claims that are related to the common disorders we know are related to exposure to this deadly compound. Now we are entering a final period for those affected by the residuals of Agent Orange to start their claim and those already affected to reopen, to avoid lost benefits. Just as important, those not affected or do not suffer from a condition should not file for just a piece of the pie, for those type of claims just load up the system and bog it down for those who deserve rightful consideration. We need to clean up our act and act responsible. Those who have no problem should thank the Lord and assist those in need. There are many advocates in the USA for the Vietnam veteran, I am one. Many times victims are pushed out by those who wish to get a share they do not qualify for. If they are not disabled they have no share. We are in a struggle with an organization which has lied and deceived the veteran on an ongoing basis for years. We need to address truth and justice and stop the VA from deceiving veterans, manipulating and literally cheating the veteran from his just benefit due to the beloved budget.
I wish to remind you that many veterans from other wars still resent the issue of Agent Orange, and remind you that many others of the same groups support the Agent Orange issue. We often judge other groups by the attitudes of a few, just as they judge us by the attitude of a few of our own. All of the major veteran organizations support the Vietnam veterans in their quest for justice. Let us remember them and thank them for their support. We still need to remember there are those in power who wish to deny all benefits regarding Agent Orange. The new attitude of the VA is not a solid attitude. We also have veterans representatives who deny Agent Orange was or is a threat to the health of those exposed.
If you served in-country you were more than likely exposed to Agent Orange especially if you were there between 1961 and 1971. The degree of exposure is a major factor in the chances of adverse medical problems. In nearly all documented cases there was severe chloracne involved. This is a sure sign of problems.
Unfortunately, not all cases have shown the same symptoms. I personally, have attended the funerals of several dozen veterans who died as a result of soft tissue sarcoma who never shown any signs of chloracne.
We know for a fact that several laboratories have shown disaster follows the use of herbicides containing TCDD, yet the same government that controls these labs, for many years denied the same substance would harm an American veteran. This is truly a conflict of statements.
Now, the decision is in, the Vietnam veteran has won the deadliest battle of all. Let the VA proceed with proper procedures and expedite the claims. Let proper medical treatment for the various cancers, skin conditions and liver ailments begin and let it be done without being twisted by the VA budget! Let us bring a final end to the Vietnam war.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
Are They Serious? And The Verdict Is In: Guilty! Have a similar theme. We are discussing the methods used by the political leaders to make it appear as if they have granted all the Vietnam veteran wanted and/or needed, while carefully creating legislation that when put into law had no teeth in it. Please give the prime example of this statement and the results.
___________________________________________________
Ortho Weed B Gon is stated to be one-half of the compound, which half? Please list all physical conditions you suffer from that are not traumatically induced; or, conditions that are not pre-existing to your in-country Vietnam experience.
Are these the same conditions listed in the prior examples? If not why?
_______________
In the essay listed as The Verdict Is In: Guilty! We learned the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Ed Derwinski had agreed in U.S. District Court to allow AGENT ORANGE claims to be accepted by the VA. We have witnessed a slow but steady approval of various cancers that are allowed; however the VA still has the bulk of conditions backlogged. Peripheral Neuropathy is a condition that has also been accepted as probable service connected. Give examples of why the Vietnam veteran has had a difficult time accepting the official U.S. government explanation of the residuals of exposure to AGENT ORANGE.
___________________________________________________
Are you now being treated at the VAOPC for any condition that may be related to your exposure to AGENT ORANGE? _____yes____no If yes what?
_______________________
Have you been given the AGENT ORANGE screening exam?_____ If so when?
______Where?____
Agent Orange data was reviewed by a member of the Medical Biochemistry Department of the Ohio State University.
RULE CHANGES
On August 3, 1992, the American Legion submitted a letter to former Secretary Edward Derwinski challenging the VA position regarding soft tissue sarcoma. The American Legion pointed to the fact the VA was including twenty of one hundred and sixty six soft tissue tumors, concerning adjudication regulations to establish service connection for soft tissue sarcomas based on exposure to herbicides containing dioxin. It was the second letter in a seventeen month period challenging the VA to honestly deal with the issue at hand. It was the second time in seventeen months the issue was ignored by the VA.
Mr. Richard Christian, former Director of the U.S. Army Headquarters, Environmental Support Group (ESG), is now the Deputy Director for Research and Technology Assessment, for the American Legion. When the American Legion brought Mr. Christian aboard, it was to many, in the veterans community, the coup d'etat of the century. The absolutely best government official serving the veteran left the employ of the government and became the employee of the veterans. It could not have been much better if it had been a script from a movie dedicated to veterans. We finally have an advocate in Washington, through a veterans organization, who will stand up and be counted, and will make sure the research is in proper perspective.
It was stated in the letter of August 3, 1992 that the VA was too restrictive in its interpretation of the Congressional acts that have led to service connection of soft tissue sarcomas. It states it was never the intent of Congress that the VA publish a specific list which was based on a recommendation of the now disenfranchised Veterans Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards.
The following is a copy of a letter sent to the former Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This letter was in regard to his initial decision to exclude recommended conditions, recognized by the NAS. The VA had agreed to use the judgment of the NAS on all issues to be considered as residuals of exposure to herbicides. We have made progress since this letter, but far from enough to right the wrongs. The letter was responded to by Deputy Secretary and later Secretary Hershel Gober.
April 20, 1994
Mr. Jesse Brown, SecretaryDepartment of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue N W
Washington D C 20420
Dear Secretary Brown:
Many veteran's hopes were riding high on your January 4, 1994 decision to allow presumptive service connection for association of certain additional conditions as being sufficient evidence of association between exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam and the relationship between exposure and multiple myeloma. It was strongly stated that all studies did not support the decision. However, one cited study showed a clear association between herbicides and multiple myeloma. The Federal Register Vol 59, No 23 dated February 3, 1994 stated: "The Secretary has determined that there is positive association between herbicides and multiple myeloma that manifest itself to a degree of 10% at any time after exposure." Also accepted for service connection was "respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea)". As quoted from the same Federal Register.
After showing acceptance of those few conditions, you then ruled out twenty conditions which you determined were not in close relationship to exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam. The first of those conditions that should be addressed is prostate cancer. As you accepted multiple myeloma and respiratory cancers; yet included in the same paragraph indicating suggestive evidence of an association (albeit limited), was prostate cancer. To quote the study, Veterans and Agent Orange-Health Effects of Herbicides Used In Vietnam (prepublication copy) sent to me August 18, 1993. I quote in part "evidence is suggestive of an association between herbicides and the outcome but is limited because chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with confidence. For example, at least one high-quality study shows a positive association, but the results of other studies are inconsistent. There is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between the exposure to herbicides and the following health outcomes: respiratory cancers (lung, larynx, trachea), prostate cancer, multiple myeloma." This is a direct quote from Page 6 of the Executive Summary.
Since receiving both the Executive Summary as well as the main text of the study, I have studied both. Also, I have had limited discussions with a Medical Biochemist, employed as a Professor at the Ohio State University. This professor was involved in the study. Our exchange of information has solidified my position regarding the selective acceptance of those conditions that may be politically correct. The reason of my contention of political correctness is the decision will convince many Vietnam Veterans that the Department of Veterans Affairs is recognizing Agent Orange as the killer it is; while keeping the majority of veterans away from service connection. My associate, the Medical-Biochemist, has stated: "Agriculture studies have shown some connection to prostate cancer. Prostate cancer has been known as a disease of older men. Pressure must be maintained for studies of Vietnam Veterans to be continued". He further stated "I feel if the Secretary accepted multiple myeloma and respiratory cancers, he certainly should have included prostate cancer". These quotes show that a highly regarded source from Ohio State University's Medical Biochemistry Department, who, was directly involved with testimony before the academy, agrees with the point prostate cancer should not be excluded at this time.
It is certain that all cancers are not a result of exposure to herbicides. It is also certain that many are a direct result of exposure to herbicides. It would seem logical to accept as fact those which evidence has proven. To accept those conditions which have suggestive evidence of association, while continuing the studies on the others, may well be suspect. This is not a time to allow political expedience destroy decades of work on the part of a few loyal believers who have pressed this once dead issue into acceptance on the part of all veterans regardless of their exposure or even period of service. To deny all Agent Orange claims, except for the seven conditions, is not good at all. The other conditions have not been properly ruled out. I feel this decision will plug the appeals system for years to come.
I had previously asked Mr. Joe Andry of the DAV to give you a copy of my dissertation on Agent Orange and PTSD. I hope you have read it. I am enclosing an additional copy for your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID A BARKER
Senior Veterans Service Officerfor Franklin County DAB/cr
ACTIONS
As you know, there is a great turmoil regarding Agent Orange and the decision of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. When the National Academy of Science released the report this created a "reason" for the VA to take action on Agent Orange. It has allowed the VA to "claim" they have taken positive action to assist the Vietnam Veteran victim in their quest for justice, when they have not.
Using an old political ploy, they have helped less than 1% denied 99% and stated they have addressed the issue. They have not addressed the issue at all. They have accepted 7 of 166 known cancers related to dioxin exposure. It is true that all 166 will not be found to be direct results of dioxin exposure. HOWEVER, the balance is not even close to being proper at this time. We will continue to press the issues as fast as possible. Letters to your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives complaining of the inaction will help. As you know the Agent Orange issue was addressed by the Department of Veteran Affairs in 1994. Over the past few years, we have had much talk from our politicians with little action. They have tossed a few bones at the veteran; but, no substantial regulations to address the overwhelming majority of affected veterans.
The 1994 disaster brought about acceptance of seven conditions that were cited by the National Academy of Science as possible or probable residuals of exposure to Agent Orange. There were many other conditions in the same category; but were not accepted by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a result of his political decision to grant only seven of those considered. Hundreds of thousands of veterans were arbitrarily eliminated from the claims process. A cunning move on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs to avoid addressing the issues that have plagued the Vietnam Veteran since 1970.
Many other studies will continue. If the Department of Veterans Affairs denied a claim, even though the issue was not yet resolved; the one year clock started. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs' regulations, we have one year from the date of the denial to perfect the appeal. If you have filed a claim and were denied, your issue more than likely will not be addressed until after the time limit has expired. This is bureaucracy at it's worst. If you received a letter of denial from the Department of Veteran Affairs, please call your veterans representative to arrange a time to address the case. As far as I understand, if an Agent Orange case is not involving the seven cancers selected by the Department of Veterans Affairs, or chloracne or PCT; the VA is listing the claim on a special set of tapes called SIRS. When each issue is later addressed the tapes will be reviewed and veterans with those conditions will be considered.
A few things you have heard before need repeated. Several million Vietnam veterans will be lost in the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We saw the Secretary find a sure way to end the problem of Agent Orange plaguing the VA system. He arbitrarily denied all claims except those few which fell into a selected small area of cancers. Even at its very best of limited cancers, the secretary struck out conditions in the middle of a sentence. He removed the words linking prostate cancer to Agent Orange. The National Academy of Science had carefully placed those words in the center of a sentence. They were protected by a comma on each side. Alas, to no avail, the secretary saw them and knowing thousands would benefit, he struck them away.
His decision early in 1994 started a clock ticking away the hopes of millions of Vietnam veterans gaining any justice. It seems as if the VA can stretch the time enough, the veterans will lose interest. It is working. The veterans are losing interest. Many have given up hope; even worse many have died. The VA has denied thousands of cancer claims because they do not fit into that very narrow definition as listed.
If you had a claim filed for residuals of Agent Orange prior to February 1994. You must realize there is a one year period in which to appeal. If you didn't file the appeal, you didn't necessarily lose it. If yours was other than one of the select few, you still have an opportunity to pursue the claim and/or appeal. You can reopen with new and material evidence. This evidence will be forthcoming from the National Academy of Science. The VA agreed to use their research on decisions.
The spraying of Agent Orange ceased in 1971; the untimely deaths of Vietnam veterans continues. A quarter of a century has passed since the spray stopped. The VA has done very little in the meantime to soothe the terrible pain. As an example some asked about diabetes. The National Academy of Science (NAS) has not released information in regards to their studies on diabetes. They were scheduled to release information in July of 1995. As you can see July came and went with no sign of a release of information. July of 1996 and 1997 also came and went, with still no answer! In the system we are in, it is difficult to predict any time period of action. I hope we shall soon receive a new report from the NAS. This has been a very difficult time in the history of our struggle on the Agent Orange issue. For so many years the government simply said no. Suddenly we found ourselves winning a major court action in the San Francisco District Court. Then Secretary Derwinski agreed to recognize Agent Orange as a dangerous chemical with devastating residuals. That was in 1988. Then "the famed settlement" with the seven chemical companies, it looked like the total victory was in sight. The chemical companies settled in May 1984 for $180,000,000.00 and that amount was deposited at interest. Over eleven plus years, that money was distributed through the District Court in Brooklyn, New York. Thus, we have a Federal District Court decision on both coasts, over a decade ago, with little change. As I told my friend the hang glider rider, hang in there!
Did the end of the Agent Orange era arrive? Obviously the answer was no. It was not the end of Agent Orange, only the end of the hopes of several million Vietnam veterans who will be lost in the fast deals of some politicians. It seems as if the former Secretary found a sure way to end the problem of Agent Orange plaguing the VA systems. Arbitrarily deny all claims except those few which fell into a selected, by him, a small area of cancers.
If you had a claim filed for any residuals of Agent Orange prior to February 1994, today is the day to review that claim to make sure you are not being arbitrarily denied your rights. To delay is to automatically lose. It is time to call for a review of your claim. To wait will eliminate your chances of receiving justice after a quarter of a century or more. The spraying of Agent Orange ceased in 1971; the untimely deaths of Vietnam veterans continues.
UPDATE, VAO-96
Friday morning, the Ides of March, 1996 I received a ten page fax of long awaited news. The National Academy of Science had released its newest studies. These were of course not the finals, just the newest. Although to some it may seem like very little. But, to others such as I, it was big ground being broken: Spina Bifida, Peripheral Neuropathy and PCT a rare skin disease, often associated with the liver. Still predominate conditions such as Cerebral Palsy were untouched.
If you have followed my writings since 1983, you will remember this ground was covered in the late 80's. In my writings, there was an essay: The Verdict is in: Guilty which is chapter five of my book IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR THE VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN. In that essay it was stated the proof had surfaced regarding birth defects in children of exposed veterans. As a matter of fact in 1984, I had attempted to do a survey of Vietnam veterans exposed to herbicides, and their offspring. This project was through the VFW MAGAZINE. It was not a successful venture as I only received 103 responses out of approximately 250,000 Vietnam veterans who were members at that time. Not getting exactly what I wanted from that project, I sought other sources. Those sources included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Health Safety Administration (OSHA), Battelle Institute, the Ohio State University Medical and Biochemistry Department, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Those resources were far better than mine, with the exception of the CDC. I challenged the CDC in early 1988 when they claimed they could not find 1,100 exposed Vietnam veterans for sample studies. My critique then, as it is now, I had personally filed that many claims by 1988 in one county. How could the CDC, claim they could not find 1,100 exposed Vietnam veterans in the whole country? However, I did find much valuable information from the other mentioned sources. In the chapter, Poison: Agent Orange (published in 1983) damage in unborn rats was indicated. The latest report released from the NAS now states the possibility of a link of those exposed to dioxin veterans, to increased risk of Spina Bifida in their offspring. The case studies give support to that position. I still maintain there are many other birth defects as a result of the exposure. I also understand, this is a step by step process and for the first time in our history, it seems as if, we actually have a champion in our corner. It is important for all of us to remember, it is not over until the final decisions are made into the rules the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) operates under.
It must be said to all interested, two years before, when the first study was released, watered down rules came into effect. Secretary of the VA, Mr. Jesse Brown removed the words prostate cancer from the middle of a sentence. To add irony to the newest report the prostate cancer words were retained by the NAS. It seems as if those doctors know more about cancer than Secretary Brown. I had personally written Secretary Brown of that foul decision. I would hope others would have done the same. It seemed as if the leaders of the veteran organizations did not want to show any critique towards Secretary Brown. During his term he has made many speeches and received many accolades. He did fall short of being the veterans advocate he was in 1991, when employed by the Disabled American Veterans.
The papers I did review from the NAS show, without doubt, prostate cancer should not have been dropped by Secretary Brown in 1994-95. Again, prostate cancer is extremely rare in men under age 55. Yet we have buried hundreds of Vietnam veterans, dying as a result of that dreaded condition.
April 10, 1996 I received the PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE-Update 1996, in other words the newest report on Agent Orange. I read the report and studied it most carefully. I gave you an update on this study. Of course there was more to come. All issues have not been addressed. I wish for you to remember, when we started in the 70's there was zero recognition. Now we have issues approved and issues being favorably considered. What a difference a generation makes. The aforementioned book was supplied to me by Congressman John Kasich, who supported our local studies in the beginning. His former veterans aide Pat Tiberi, now Congressman Tiberi, continues to support the studies.
The announcement by the President was no surprise to those of us who have followed the saga of Agent Orange over the years. This was a great opportunity to act as if suddenly we were upon new ideas. To make a point, these are not new issues. We have discussed Prostate cancer many times since it was excluded in 1994. The Vietnam veterans were well aware that this condition generally did not affect younger men. Yet it was high in incidence among Vietnam veterans. Over the years we have discussed birth defects. As written to you before, we have reviewed much evidence to conclude there is a severe problem with many Vietnam veterans children. This in fact, does show a much higher incident rate of birth defects than all other categories of veterans surveyed. When the President announced the inclusion of Spina Bifida in the Vietnam veterans offspring, as a condition contributed to Agent Orange exposure, we broke big ground in truth. Additionally, placed into recognition was porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), a rare skin disease that can involve blistering the skin in areas exposed to the sun. Many studies have linked it to the liver as well. Also, recognized is acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. We have discussed this issue before and will again discuss it now.
It has been suggested by the National Academy of Science through the committee who reviewed the evidence in the following. The committee found limited or suggestive evidence that herbicide or dioxin exposure may be associated with the acute, transient form of peripheral neuropathy, a nerve disorder which can (and usually does) lead to pain, numbness, and weakness in the limbs. Many of those veterans affected have indicated tingling in the extremities as well. The studies found in the review of scientific literature have suggested that acute or subacute peripheral neuropathies can be associated with occupational exposure to herbicides (Ashe and Suskind, 1950); Baader and Bauer, 1951; Goldstein et al., 1959; Todd, 1962; Berkley and Magee, 1963; Poland et al., 1971 Jirasek et al., 1974). As you can plainly see through our writings over the years, compared to the above dates. They have known it all along! While they were telling the Vietnam veteran "it won't hurt you!" It was hurting you and science knew it.
In the 1996 report VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE, it states clearly, "Todd (1962) reported a sprayer of 2, 4-D weed killer who developed a gastrointestinal disturbance and, within days, a severe sensory/motor polyneuropathy after contact with the chemical." This was reported to you through my article The VERDICT IS IN: GUILTY! and POISON: AGENT ORANGE both essays which are incorporated in the book IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR VIETNAM COMBAT VETERANS. There are many more references to the condition that has been well documented in the 1996 report of the NAS. An important issue that has not been addressed is the factor of related conditions. There is to be imposed a one year time limit from leaving Vietnam, to being diagnosed with the condition. Yet other conditions have as much as a seven year presumptive period, such as Multiple Sclerosis. Are we now looking at a one year time frame to impose on the already afflicted Vietnam Veteran?
The President stated in his radio and television broadcast that before the rules were implemented they would be processed with the veteran organizations. Then placed in the Federal Register. It is time to write to the leadership of the veterans organizations and inform them you wish to have time frames eliminated in any conditions related to peripheral neuropathy. When the veteran first notices the symptoms he or she may discount the symptoms. In some cases it has taken the doctor several years to determine the diagnosis. In most cases the condition is diagnosed by eliminating all other types of neurological conditions.
RESEARCH
I did an article "ARE THEY SERIOUS?" in 1989. The article mentioned I had filed 1,100 claims by the date the CDC decided they could not find 1,100 exposed veterans. This article became a chapter in my book "IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR THE VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN" always available at no charge. Wisely, the VA moved its research hopes to the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Science.
My mother used to tell me when I needed something that "a half a loaf is better than none." This is a great quote that fits very well, into the VA scheme of things pertaining to Agent Orange; most especially the issue of BIRTH DEFECTS. My position is "a half a loaf may be better than none, but we will not accept crumbs!"
In the Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1996 (VAO-96) the door was opened with SPINA BIFIDA being accepted as a residual of Agent Orange exposure in offspring, of veterans exposed to herbicides. The VAO-96 states "There is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between exposure to the herbicides considered in this report and Spina bifida. There is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists between exposure to herbicides and all other birth defects." There is no comment to say there is no association. It is obvious the information is at this time not complete. Research must and will go on. The VAO-96 further states: "Biologic Plausibility- Laboratory studies of the potential developmental toxicity, specifically birth defects, of TCDD and herbicides as a result of exposure to adult male animals are too limited to permit conclusions."
During the CDC research and review of available data, several areas were covered. There was a telephone poll conducted that gave limited studies. The CDC attempted to use this as "validated research" and created some clouds over the Agent Orange issues. The data gathered by CDC in 1989 was restudied in VAO-96 and placed in apparent correct status. The VAO-96 states in part "As part of the CDC Vietnam Experience Study (1989), the reproductive outcomes and the health of children of male veterans were examined. The VES assessment included a telephone interview, a review of hospital birth defect records for a sub sample of veterans who underwent a medical examination, and a review of the medical records of selected birth defects for all study subjects." This report actually revealed a significantly higher birth defect rate among the Vietnam veterans offspring 64.6 per 1,000 total births vs. Non Vietnam veterans rate of 49.5 per 1,000 total births. It is important for you to know, there were several different areas of birth defects! Not only Spina bifida; also, birth defects of the nervous system, ear, face neck, and integument (skin). About half of the health problems were respiratory, as in asthma; also, otitis media. In general the Vietnam veterans reported more health problems than non Vietnam veterans. This was 1989 and prior! Please remember, many birth defects were not reported. Those defects not showing until the child reached age three for example were usually lost issues. Think about this for example: speech problems, hearing disorders, tooth and gum problems. Problems that would not appear for a few years. So again a factor worked against the Vietnam veteran and even worse, their children. There is no possibility the CDC would have followed up, on what was thought to be a normal healthy child, concerning two million plus, Vietnam veterans. Seven years later VAO-96 allowed one birth defect, spina bifida. With a much higher ratio, we have Cerebral Palsy which has been all but ignored.
So in a nutshell, the birth defect issue is still a major issue, to be resolved later! If we hold our ground and continue to press our issues we will eventually be victorious. If we stand idle, we will lose. There are untouched issues such as learning disabilities.
SOME VICTORY
The announcement by the President was no surprise to those of us who have followed the saga of Agent Orange over the years. This was a great opportunity to act as if suddenly we were upon new ideas. To make a point, these are not new issues. We have discussed Prostate cancer many times since it was excluded in 1994. The Vietnam veterans were well aware that this condition generally did not affect younger men. Yet it was high in incidence among Vietnam veterans. Over the years we have discussed birth defects. As written to you before, we have reviewed much evidence to conclude there is a severe problem with many Vietnam veterans children. This in fact, does show a much higher incident rate of birth defects than all other categories of veterans surveyed. When the President announced the inclusion of Spina Bifida in the Vietnam veterans offspring, as a condition contributed to Agent Orange exposure, we broke big ground in truth. Additionally, placed into recognition was porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), a rare skin disease that can involve blistering the skin in areas exposed to the sun. Many studies have linked it to the liver as well. Also, recognized is acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. We have discussed this issue before and will again discuss it now.
It has been suggested by the National Academy of Science through the committee who reviewed the evidence in the following. The committee found limited or suggestive evidence that herbicide or dioxin exposure may be associated with the acute, transient form of peripheral neuropathy, a nerve disorder which can (and usually does) lead to pain, numbness, and weakness in the limbs. Many of those veterans affected have indicated tingling in the extremities as well. The studies found in the review of scientific literature have suggested that acute or subacute peripheral neuropathies can be associated with occupational exposure to herbicides (Ashe and Suskind, 1950); Baader and Bauer, 1951; Goldstein et al., 1959; Todd, 1962; Berkley and Magee, 1963; Poland et al., 1971 Jirasek et al., 1974). As you can plainly see through our writings over the years, compared to the above dates. They have known it all along! While they were telling the Vietnam veteran "it won't hurt you!" It was hurting you and science knew it.
In the 1996 report VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE, it states clearly, "Todd (1962) reported a sprayer of 2, 4-D weed killer who developed a gastrointestinal disturbance and, within days, a severe sensory/motor polyneuropathy after contact with the chemical." This was reported to you through my article The VERDICT IS IN: GUILTY! and POISON: AGENT ORANGE both essays which are incorporated in the book IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR VIETNAM COMBAT VETERANS. There are many more references to the condition that has been well documented in the 1996 report of the NAS. An important issue that has not been addressed is the factor of related conditions. There is to be imposed a one year time limit from leaving Vietnam, to being diagnosed with the condition. Yet other conditions have as much as a seven year presumptive period, such as Multiple Sclerosis. Are we now looking at a one year time frame to impose on the already afflicted Vietnam Veteran?
The President stated in his radio and television broadcast that before the rules were implemented they would be processed with the veteran organizations. Then placed in the Federal Register. It is time to write to the leadership of this veterans organization and inform them you wish to have time frames eliminated in any conditions related to peripheral neuropathy. When the veteran first notices the symptoms he or she may discount the symptoms. In some cases it has taken the doctor several years to determine the diagnosis. In most cases the condition is diagnosed by eliminating all other types of neurological conditions.
PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY
The National Academy of Science (NAS) completed the second set of objectives in March 1996. The comprehensive report was published within days. On March 15th we heard the news of several new conditions being accepted as residuals of Agent Orange. We also watched the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) finally accept prostate cancer after two tries by the NAS. It would seem as if the VA feels they are more knowledgeable in these affairs than the world's greatest doctors and scientists.
This strangely brings us to peripheral neuropathy. In that same edition dealing with Agent Orange residuals we see the NAS is dealing with issues and the VA is misdealing with issues. To be exact is the Neurobehavioral Disorders. The section (10) clearly defines the various disorders and their studies. It gives an excellent chart representation of the studies used. In this study the NAS clearly shows some inconclusive results. The VA of course takes these comments to: deny the claim. The NAS states: Neurologic dysfunction can be further classified, based on anatomic distribution, as either global or focal; temporal onset, as acute, subacute, or chronic; or temporal course, as transient or persistent." Thus, we must look at the overall view of the question at hand; did Agent Orange contribute to the condition? The NAS states "Case identification in neurology is often difficult. Despite advances in neuroimaging, many types of Neurologic alterations are biochemical and show no abnormalities on scanning tests." The NAS also states: "timing is important in assessing the effect of chemical exposures of Neurologic function. Some symptoms of Neurologic importance will appear acutely but be short-lived. Others will appear slowly but be detectable for extended periods." The report specifically states: "the potential neurotoxicity of TCDD and herbicides in animal studies has not been thoroughly investigated." It is small wonder we find fault in VA decisions. Instead of advising the veteran his study is not completed. The VA denies the case and often the veteran will forget the issue. The Veterans and Agent Orange (VAO) committee recommended later in life studies on all occupational cases reviewed. The report stated with no reservation: "theoretically, exposure to neurotoxin could produce "accelerated aging" of the brain due to premature neuronal loss, which could then result in neurobehavioral deficits. The report from the VAO did give some facts the veteran community needs to be familiar with. First in VAO, the committee was concluded that there are no definitive studies to determine whether exposure to dioxin or related herbicides is associated with (Central Nervous System) CNS motor/coordination problems. Follow up should be assessed further in exposed subjects. Second in VAO it is clearly stated the Chronic Persistent Peripheral Neuropathy summary the evidence was inadequate or insufficient of an association in exposure to be considered. It nowhere said it should be ruled out, as the VA did rule out this condition. It will not be considered, at this time. I will add however, as veterans present themselves to the VA doctors and press the issue of Chronic Persistent Peripheral Neuropathy we will see changes. It must be remembered by all of us. Many of the VA doctors will still have doubt when the work with the veterans neurobehavioral disorders. Many doctors are not going to be familiar with the condition being a residual of exposure to chemicals. Thus the condition may be over looked for years! When the NAS releases its next report we will hopefully see the various other ignored neurobehavioral disorders addressed.
We need to observe the actions of our government in all respects. With the cuts in budgets and the reduction of services the Vietnam victim is certain to suffer even further.
PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY II
We have been working on the conditions known as NEUROBEHAVIORAL DISORDERS. We last addressed the Acute and Subacute transient peripheral neuropathy. The VA has accepted this as a service connectable condition as a residual of exposure to Agent Orange. This was based on the summary statement "there is some evidence to suggest that neuropathy of acute or subacute onset may be associated with herbicide exposure." The question of this hour is how could the VA choose these conditions and omit the more common condition of CHRONIC PERSISTENT PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY.
In the VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE: UPDATE 1996 (VAO-96), these conditions were addressed. The VA had agreed several years ago to work with the National Academy of Science (NAS) in order to determine the conditions which would be accepted as service connectable in relation to Agent Orange exposure. Often we have problems dealing with facts and often the facts may disprove that which we most desire. Other times the facts are not conclusive and the issue must rest until more significant data is considered. Such may be the case of chronic persistent peripheral neuropathy. It must be emphasized that because we must wait upon additional evidence, the issue is not resolved. It simply means further study may be required in order to obtain the absolute.
I will quote from the VAO-96 "although some of the case reports reviewed in VAO suggested that an acute or subacute peripheral can develop with exposure to TCDD and related products, other reports with comparison groups did not offer clear evidence that TCDD exposure is associated with chronic peripheral neuropathy. The most rigorously conducted studies argued against a relationship between TCDD or herbicides and chronic persistent neuropathy." Now, we must place the statement in perspective.
In placing perspective, I will quote the next paragraph from VAO-96 "as a group, the studies concerning peripheral neuropathy have been conducted with highly varying methodologies and have lacked uniformity of operational definitions of neuropathy. They have not applied consistent methods to define a comparison population or to determine exposure or clinical deficits. Timing of follow-up may be important, since many, but not all, reports that find neuropathy were based on assessments made only a short time after exposure. It was concluded that careful definition of neuropathy and standardization of protocols will be essential to future evaluations." Is this to mean the end of the discussion? The answer is no. It is not an end, only a point. In every journey there are points. A point to start, a point to review and a point resume. We are now at the point to review. Often many experts have stated the blood tests are very important in determination. The blood test required are very expensive. There has been great reluctance on the part of government to research through the blood test method.
In the VAO-96 in the UPDATE OF THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE the issue is clarified in the following "The exposure index depended entirely on the subjects reports and no confirmatory documentation or blood levels of TCDD were obtained." In light of prior studies (CDC 1988, 1989) that documented no relationship between this self-reported herbicide exposure index and a biological marker of actual dioxin exposure among Vietnam veterans, this study neither confirmed nor refuted a relationship between neuropathy and dioxin exposure among Vietnam veterans.
This leaves a powerful question with us, when will the issue be resolved? The answer lies in a future report to be made by the NAS. It has certainly not been resolved as of yet.
BIRTH DEFECTS
It is time for a study to be made comparing birth defects in the non veteran population born between 1946 and 1955 and compare it to veterans exposed to Agent Orange of the exact same age group. I am positive you will see a much higher incident of birth defects among the Vietnam veterans group.
Currently there is a bill in Congress to compensate a select few Vietnam veterans. This would recognize spina bifida and several other problems related to exposure to Agent Orange. The other conditions were discussed in previous writings. It is important to remember the logic behind the actions of our government and its relationship to the veteran. No matter how frustrated we become with the VA, we must remember it is the Congress and President who have the final say in the allowable conditions that are to be service connected. If Congress and the President do not take the appropriate action, absolutely nothing will happen. Until VA regulations are included, as far as the VA is concerned the condition is not going to be considered for compensation. Since the last report from the National Academy of Science (NAS) we have observed much action. We also should have a few questions. The first question that comes to my mind is regarding birth defects. Is there an explanation to the theory of only one singular birth defect being a result of exposure to dioxin? As I had stated in a recent meeting with about 40 veterans and a few widows, if you have a gene that is damaged because you were soaked in poison, is it logical that spina bifida would be the only birth defect to come from that damaged gene? I think not. Logic would tell me that there is a myriad of conditions that may well be a direct result of genetic damage in a person so exposed.
Since early 1983 I have reviewed many articles from various scientific and medical publications. There have been several articles that would lead a layman to believe genetic damage can and does react differently depending upon the individuals involved. There are documented cases of twins being born one healthy, one not. I have read twin studies on several occasions and the studies have always differed. The only consistency is the marked variations. Now is the time veterans groups pull together and form a unified effort to read, no study, the information that is supplied to the VA and other branches of our government. It is common knowledge that EPA reports of the 1960's and 1970's indicated concern regarding the toxic nature of the chemical we all call Agent Orange. Often critics of the Vietnam veteran compared the aerial spray of right of ways in America to the alleged identical spray used in Vietnam. That was simply not a true statement in any form. The spray used in Vietnam was 30-40 parts per million (ppm) TCDD while the spray used in America was less than 1 ppm TCDD.
Over the past decade and one half, I have spoken with thousands of Vietnam veterans or their widows about their children with various birth defects. When I say thousands, let us place that in perspective. There are less than 115,000 veterans in Franklin County. I have spoken with well over a thousand veterans who have children born with birth defects. Although this is strictly non scientific, if we have thousands of children born to Vietnam veterans in Franklin County doesn't that indicate a serious problem?
We now have the "foot in the door" with spinal bifida. It is time to push for all birth defects to be compared. It should include those children who have learning disabilities as well. Let us press our congressional representatives to take positive action today!
BIRTH DEFECTS II
As Discussed in part I of this series on birth defects it was explained how the Vietnam veteran faced a hostile environment in obtaining fair and impartial review of the various birth defects appearing in their children. The government was reluctant to give that extra effort needed for recognition. Until less than a decade ago it was pounded into the minds of Americans that Agent Orange only caused chloracne, a skin disorder. There was constant governmental denial of any relationship to birth defects. In 1996, which was a quarter century after the last use of Agent Orange on American troops, it was publicly conceded that Agent Orange may be responsible for one solitary birth defect. The untold part of this story was the vast amount of evidence that shows a probable link to the largest killer of children in the United States. Other very common serious heath problems were also reported at an increase over parents not exposed to Agent Orange.
In the Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1996 (VAO-96) the door was opened with SPINA BIFIDA being accepted as a residual of Agent Orange exposure in offspring, of veterans exposed to herbicides. A major problem still exists and seems to be swept under the mat. That problem is the other significant birth defects that Vietnam veteran offspring seem to have at a much higher rate than non Vietnam veterans. These include leukemia, the number one killer disease of children. Elevated odds were found for the nervous system, musculoskeletal defects, hydrocephalus (which ratio rivals Spina Bifida) and hypospadias, a developmental anomaly in the male in which the urethra opens on the underside of the penis or on the perineum. The VAO- 96 report continues with the following statement, "about half of the health conditions reported were respiratory disease (mostly asthma and pneumonia) and otitis media. For most of the conditions, the veterans reported more health conditions than non-Vietnam veterans." There are other conditions which have a less significant ratio, but still not to be ruled out as excessive. These include but are not limited to digestive disorders, learning disabilities and behavioral disorders. I wish to make another important quote from VAO-96, "The second sub study, the Cerebrospinal Malformation (CSM) Study, involved the analysis of medical records for all cases of cerebrospinal malformations (spina bifida, anencephalus, hydrocephalus) and still births reported by veterans in the interview study. The sub study found 26 cerebrospinal malformations (live and stillbirths) among children of Vietnam veterans and 12 among children of non Vietnam veterans."
These conditions may not seem important to the government officials who make the all important decisions that affect the lives of veterans. They certainly are important to many veterans who have children who have been crippled by the exposure of their parent to Agent Orange. These children suffer while the "good ol boys" continue to set agendas without consideration of the Vietnam veteran.
We must continue to demand the investigation of the birth defects in children. Our nations future is at stake. Our children are our future.
BIRTH DEFECTS III
After the successful publication of my first two Agent Orange articles in 1983, it was decided to attempt a venture into an area that had very little exploration at the time. As a Veterans Service Officer, I had met quite a few veterans who had children with various birth defects. The problems ranged from learning disabilities to obvious crippling conditions. There were very few articles available dealing with the children; however, I was very aware of the situation.
In 1984 there was an attempt to do my own survey with the birth defect question. I asked the VFW Magazine to run an article asking Vietnam veterans to respond to the types of birth defects. With an approximate 250,000 Vietnam veterans in the membership at that time, I thought I would get good response. I didnt. The response was about 105 letters. I knew more than 105 veterans personally, in this community, who had a child that had some sort of problem, either physical defects or a possible learning disability. With a response of 105 out of 250,000 it was apparent we had to rely on the Center for Disease Control (CDC); or, other government sources. It was very disappointing to learn the CDC was either unable, or not interested enough to develop information supplied to them. As a result of the CDCs inability to find 1,100 veterans in 1986 that were exposed to Agent Orange, many of us in the veterans community, lost all hope in the CDC; or their being even remotely effective in this issue. I had written an article "ARE THEY SERIOUS?" in 1989. The article mentioned, I had filed 1,100 claims by the date the CDC decided they could not find 1,100 exposed veterans. This article became a chapter in this book "IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR THE VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN" it has been always available at no charge. Wisely, the VA moved its research hopes to the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Science.
Again, my mother used to tell me when I needed something that "a half a loaf is better than none." This is a great quote that fits very well, into the VA scheme of things pertaining to Agent Orange; most especially the issue of BIRTH DEFECTS. My position is "a half a loaf may be better than none, but we will not accept crumbs!"
In the Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1996 (VAO-96) the door was opened with SPINA BIFIDA being accepted as a residual of Agent Orange exposure in offspring, of veterans exposed to herbicides. The VAO-96 states "There is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between exposure to the herbicides considered in this report and spina bifida. There is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists between exposure to herbicides and all other birth defects." There is no comment to say there is no association.
It is obvious the information is at this time not complete. Research must and will go on. The VAO-96 further states: "Biologic Plausibility- Laboratory studies of the potential developmental toxicity, specifically birth defects, of TCDD and herbicides as a result of exposure to adult male animals are too limited to permit conclusions." During the CDC research and review of available data, several areas were covered. There was a telephone poll conducted that gave limited studies. The CDC attempted to use this as "validated research" and created some clouds over the Agent Orange issues. The data gathered by CDC in 1989 was restudied in VAO-96 and placed in apparent correct status. The VAO-96 states in part "As part of the CDC Vietnam Experience Study (1989), the reproductive outcomes and the health of children of male veterans were examined. The VES assessment included a telephone interview, a review of hospital birth defect records for a sub sample of veterans who underwent a medical examination, and a review of the medical records of selected birth defects for all study subjects." This report actually revealed a significantly higher birth defect rate among the Vietnam veterans offspring 64.6 per 1,000 total births vs. Non Vietnam veterans rate of 49.5 per 1,000 total births. It is important for you to know, there were several different areas of birth defects! Not only spina bifida; also, birth defects of the nervous system, ear, face neck, and integument (skin). About half of the health problems were respiratory, as in asthma; also, otitis media. In general the Vietnam veterans reported more health problems than non Vietnam veterans. This was 1989 and prior! Please remember, many birth defects were not reported. Those defects not showing until the child reached age three for example were usually lost issues. Think about this for example: speech problems, hearing disorders, tooth and gum problems. Problems that would not appear for a few years. So again a factor worked against the Vietnam veteran and even worse, their children. There is no possibility the CDC would have followed up, on what was thought to be a normal healthy child , concerning two million plus, Vietnam veterans. In 1996 VAO-96 allowed one birth defect, spina bifida.
So in a nutshell, the birth defect issue is still a major issue, to be resolved later! If we hold our ground and continue to press our issues we will eventually be victorious. If we stand idle, we will lose.
SIRS
As far as I understand, if an Agent Orange case is not involving the seven cancers selected by Secretary Brown, or chloracne or PCT; the VA is listing the claim on a special set of tapes called SIRS. When each issue is later addressed the tapes will be reviewed and veterans with those conditions will be considered.
A few things you have heard before need repeated. Several million Vietnam veterans will be lost in the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We saw the VA find a sure way to end the problem of Agent Orange plaguing the system. He arbitrarily denied all claims except those few which fell into a selected small area of cancers. Even at its very best of limited cancers, the secretary struck out conditions in the middle of a sentence. He removed the words linking prostate cancer to Agent Orange. The National Academy of Science had carefully placed those words in the center of a sentence. They were protected by a comma on each side. Alas, to no avail, the secretary saw them and knowing thousands would benefit, he struck them away. A little over two years later they were reinserted. This was one time we stuck together and fought the battle!
His decision early in 1994 started a clock ticking away the hopes of millions of Vietnam veterans gaining any justice. It seems as if the VA can stretch the time enough, the veterans will lose interest. It is working. The veterans are losing interest. Many have given up hope; even worse many have died. The VA has denied thousands of cancer claims because they do not fit into that very narrow definition as listed.
If you had a claim filed for residuals of Agent Orange prior to February 1994. You must realize, there is a one year period in which to appeal. If you didn't file the appeal, you didn't necessarily lose it. However, beginning February 1995, there were thousands losing their right to appeal the decisions. To delay was to automatically lose, if your condition was one of those Jesse Brown recognized. If yours was other than one of the select few, you still have an opportunity to pursue the claim and/or appeal. You can reopen with new and material evidence. This evidence will be forthcoming from the National Academy of Science. The VA agreed to use their research on decisions. I assure you, as long as I am able to read and write, my reports will go out to those who choose to read them.
The spraying of Agent Orange ceased in 1971; the untimely deaths of Vietnam veterans continues. Over a quarter century has passed since the spray stopped. The VA has done little, in the meantime, to soothe the terrible pain.
As an example some asked about diabetes. The National Academy of Science (NAS) has not released information in regards to their studies on diabetes. They were scheduled to release information in July of 1995. As you can see July came and went with no sign of a release of information. In the system we are in, it is difficult to predict any time period of action. I hope we shall soon receive a new report from the NAS. This has been a very difficult time in the history of our struggle on the Agent Orange issue. For so many years the government simply said no. Suddenly we found ourselves winning a major court action in the San Francisco District Court. Then Secretary Derwinski agreed to recognize Agent Orange as a dangerous chemical with devastating residuals. That was in 1988. Then "the famed settlement" with the seven chemical companies, it looked like the total victory was in sight. The chemical companies settled in May 1984 for $180,000,000.00 and that amount was deposited at interest. Over the past eleven plus years that money was distributed through the District Court in Brooklyn, New York. Thus, we have a Federal District Court decision on both coasts seven and again eleven years ago, with little in between. As I told my friend the hang glider rider, hang in there!
Has the end of the Agent Orange era arrived? Some Bureaucrats thought so: but, it is not the end of Agent Orange issues. Only the end of the hopes of several million Vietnam veterans who were lost in the quick response of Secretary Brown of the VA. It seemed as if the VA found a sure way to end the problem of Agent Orange plaguing the system. Arbitrarily deny all claims, except those few which fell into a selected small area of cancers.
If you had a claim filed for any residuals of Agent Orange prior to February 1994, today is the day to review that claim to make sure you are not being arbitrarily denied your rights. If you have not already done so; to delay is to automatically lose. The time to act is now.
It is time to call for a review of your claim. To wait will eliminate your chances of receiving justice well after a quarter of a century and more for untold thousands. The spraying of Agent Orange ceased in 1971; the untimely deaths of Vietnam veterans continues.
UPDATE 1998 (1999)
It was thought by many to be a report that would develop the question regarding birth defects, diabetes, peripheral neuropathy and out of the ordinary conditions creating havoc on Vietnam veterans. The report did call for additional studies on these conditions. However the next report is not due until 2000. If we have the same delay situation again, the report may well not be released until 2001. For those suffering from urinary bladder cancer this will be more than likely to late for help with their financial burden. Many times it is forgotten the purpose of compensation is to compensate for the loss of earning power.
Once again the birth defect issue studies were not conclusive. A quote from the new study states in part "Several previous studies of veterans showed a suggestive association with spina bifida, although a number of methodological issues limit interpretation. [Three new occupational studies] provide some additional support for the association of herbicide with this specific birth defect, although concerns remain, including the control of confounding, exposure to herbicides and TCDD."
In general language this means, the studies are far from complete. It has remained a mystery if the study of birth defects are restricted to those which were noted by physicians at birth. The major question remains, after all of the years dealing with this subject; are birth defects that do not show at birth, as learning disabilities, et al, later studied?
Many Vietnam veterans have concerns regarding their skin disorders. It has been established for decades that chloracne is a recognized residual of Agent Orange. Now recent studies have indicated some change in procedure. "In VAO and Update 1996, all skin cancers were assessed together. However, with this review, the committee has decided to address studies assessing the health risk associated with nonmelanocytic cancers (basal and squamous cell carcinoma)." The report goes on to state "The strongest evidence linking herbicide exposure and nonmelanocytic skin cancers comes from a recent community-based control study. This study controlled for sun exposure, skin and hair color, and mothers ethnic origin, and found increasing of squamous cell carcinoma with increasing lifetime exposure to herbicides. Although the committee agrees that [this] study is best to date, concerns still remained regarding the control of confounding and the adequacy of exposure assessment." It further stated "In addition, efforts to examine the carcinogenicity of organic arsenicals should be encouraged."
In regards to diabetes the study stated in part "the potentially more definitive 1997 report from the Ranch Hand study raises the possibility that veterans in the highest herbicide exposure category may be at increased risk." HERBICIDES, DIABETES AND YOU
In the month of March 2000, I wrote an article for the OHIO AMVET magazine, regarding the Ranch Hand study of diabetes and Agent Orange exposure. This was actually, a developing follow up, on the subject addressed several years before regarding diabetes and herbicide exposure.
In March of the year 2000, we had an astounding revelation from the United States Air Force regarding Agent Orange and its devastating affect upon its victims. This is the same United States Air Force whose "Ranch Hand study" at one time was used by the old Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs, to uphold the theory that the herbicides only caused chloracne. As a side note: I have seen more than one chloracne case denied by the VARO! In the chapter: THE VERDICT IS IN: GUILTY, Operation Ranch Hand personnel were claiming to have played in Agent Orange by spraying it upon one another in acts of horseplay. That had been a topic in a COLUMBUS DISPATCH story, which appeared to foil Vietnam veteran attempts to obtain rightful benefits from being poisoned by dangerous herbicides.
The Ranch Hand study now suddenly reveals, what has been addressed in my articles for over a decade. There are many conditions resulting from Agent Orange besides chloracne. These conditions include diabetes and birth defects other than spina bifida.
The new report found in VETERANS and AGENT ORANGE Update 2000, confirms what the up to date veteran has known for many years, diabetes developed in later life is associated with exposure to herbicides containing Tetrachlor isomer of p-dibenzo dioxin known as TCDD or Agent Orange. It has been called the most lethal synthetic chemical known to man.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the Institute of Health has now released the study to America. Congressman John Kasich furnished my copy. It was my duty to read the entire publication and report findings to my clients and those who read my work.
I had sent a copy of the unfinished draft of this chapter to Secretary of Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober in October. In a letter dated November 1, 2000, Secretary Gober informed me of his great interest in the NAS study and he had a task force studying the NAS document. He further promised to have a decision before Thanksgiving. True to his word, Secretary Gober announced November 9, 2000 the diabetes type 2 (adult onset) was to be service connected.
Veterans affected by this situation will probably reach more that one quarter million. A major dilemma faces the VA and American politicians. Who is going to pay the bill? Well for the past years since the end of the Vietnam War, Americas veterans have paid a terribly high price. Now the VA and the politicians are working on their cost. The VA has apparently accepted responsibility.
In conversations with two individuals in separate interviews, employed by the VA, I was told the cost would be prohibitive. These were conversations with veterans employed in the VA who are dedicated to fairness. It was finally the time for the government to come to the aid of the Agent Orange diabetes victim. The study by the NAS shows the designation of "Limited/Suggestive" scientific evidence, which is as strong as three other conditions, approved by the VA.
Hundreds of my veteran clients had peripheral neuropathy claims denied by the VA, because their condition did not fall into the acute and subacute category as established in earlier VAO studies. Diabetes is a major cause of peripheral neuropathy. Major changes are in the forecast on this issue. Now we can correct the problems of the past for those who still survive. Diabetes moved upward in the NAS report and the 2000 Ranch Hand study together gave new hope to Vietnam veterans. The Ranch Hand study indicated the higher the bloodstream concentration of dioxin, shown in tests back in the 1980s (which was ten years or more) after exposure to Agent Orange was greater risk in developing diabetes. There are dioxin studies now completed in the USA showing abnormalities in the bodys insulin response to sugar. Diabetes also causes death by heart and kidney failure as well as other diseases. These conditions have not been ruled out and most likely will not be ruled out.
MEDIA CATCH UP!
Tuesday April 2, 2002 the Columbus Dispatch and many other papers across our land presented an article on Agent Orange and the VA debt to veterans. It was refreshing to say the least to see the Columbus Dispatch article that verifies several chapters in the book In Search Of The Truth For Vietnam Combat Veterans 1998 Ohio AMVETS.
Finally the issue of effective dates were resolved by the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The article quoted Judge Dorothy Nelson "ailing Vietnam veterans should not bear the financial burden of government delays in acknowledging the devastating effects of Agent Orange." This decision will also assist the survivors of deceased veterans obtain benefits long overdue them.
In this work authored by David Barker from 1983 to 2001 each issue addressed in the Columbus Dispatch article was addressed in the 1980s and 90s. The Columbus Dispatch was sent copies but declined to publish or review them. The now very well known CNBC financial newscaster Liz Claman did a nice piece on the issues with David Barker on then WTVN-TV Channel 6. The OHIO AMVET magazine, Ohio VFW News, VVAs Ohio Veteran Communicator and several other veteran publications published each chapter of the book in serial form. The letter to Jesse Brown on April 20, 1994 and its follow-up was also incorporated into the book and the issue was published in our state veteran publications as well as Bravo Outlook a national magazine.
In each year the National Academy of Sciences has published a review, the author has revised his work to reflect on the new findings. In 1983 when employed by the Franklin County Soldier and Sailors Relief Commission, now known as the Franklin County Veterans Service Commission, David Barker came under personal attack on his position regarding Agent Orange. There was considerable pressure by isolated critics that attempted to discredit not only the work but the author as well. Several critics went to the point of an attempt to cause the termination of the authors employment. Fortunately for David it was to no avail.
To sum up the decision of the Appeals Court and the Columbus Dispatch we thank you in this year of 2002
IF YOU WERE EXPOSED TO AGENT ORANGE READ THIS!
Leukemia and other issues resulting from the 2002 report released in January 2003 from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The fourth biennial update. Agent Orange first used in Vietnam in February of 1961 and used thereafter until the end of 1971 has beleaguered surviving Vietnam veterans more than any other issue. From the early months of the 1970s returning Vietnam veterans reported a multitude of conditions out of the normal realm of illness which seemed to be from a common source. That source was Agent Orange.
For many years we fought an uphill battle, which is still far from won. Currently we are in the midst of a bureaucratic argument of charging Vietnam veterans co-payment of medicines related to conditions the veterans knows is related to their Agent Orange exposure. Congress can mandate all of the laws and regulations they want and VA lawyers will interpret them to satisfy the VA budget. Thus three decades after the last use of the poisonous herbicide Agent Orange we are still fighting the system.
Again, a report from the National Academy of Sciences regarding leukemia and Agent Orange. If you recall the last report regarding leukemia and Agent Orange was flawed and another birth defect issue was trashed. That aroused joy in the hearts of the VA bureaucrats who are budget driven.
The Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences connected thorough research Agent Orange with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL). In the past reports Veterans and Agent Orange mention of this condition was made as not significant. Now it has been upgraded and the results will be sent to the VA lawyers to finalize the rules the victims will be subjected to for benefits. The research has indicated CLL is sharing characteristics with Hodgkin's Disease and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Well, why not admit the facts that nearly all cancers are related. Most especially the people exposed to herbicides. Many cancers are the result of Agent Orange. As a matter of fact it has been very difficult for the NAS scientists definitely rule out any cancer, being a residual of the exposure to the deadliest of synthetic chemicals. In 1994 it was determined that soft tissue sarcoma was a residual of exposure to Agent Orange. Since that time the Central Office redefined what soft tissue sarcoma is and had been considered. Thus it was restricted to certain organs rather than sarcoma of soft tissue in general.
Today, we still find many unbelievers in our midst. Even veterans in some cases that were in Vietnam feel if it did not affect them it just did not happen.. In the early 1990s my job had again been threatened over the stance taken regarding leukemia and cancers attacking those exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD or Agent Orange. Also it is very important to remember arsenic was used in herbicides as well as TCDD. Now, would you spray to kill undesirable weeds or rats around your home with arsenic? I doubt it. You may carefully set out bait with that substance; but I seriously doubt if you would spray your yard! We need the NAS to concentrate on issues that are making Vietnam and certain Korea veterans ill with multiple cancers and other conditions. The birth defect issues as cerebral palsy which have a very high rate of incidence be explored. Renal cancer was upgraded in 1998 and where is a recent report on that killing condition? It would seem as if a condition that was upgraded would also have a high priority.
Another question comes to mind in the resolve of this issue. Those that died from Agent Orange before May 11, 1988 are statistics of the past. We see no evidence that their autopsies have been considered in the formula used in determination. I specifically recall veteran clients dying of cancer 1n the very early 1980s and their claim were denied, the appeals denied and the widows went on and the claim was forgotten by the VA. That issue did not make the cause and effect go away. It only made the statistics reflect other than the true facts. When these issues are brought to the attention of the veterans community some scoff, some deny, some ridicule, and some listen and make up their own mind.
One fact is important above all others after over thirty years of complaints, we are still far from the final analysis, so this fact bears repeating: The research has indicated CLL is sharing characteristics with Hodgkin's Disease and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Well, why not admit the facts that nearly all cancers are related. Most especially the people exposed to herbicides. In 1988 none of these conditions were accepted.
I am certain there are those who criticize the eagerness of Vietnam veterans who want answers. However, this has been going on for nearly four decades.
THE HEART OF AGENT ORANGE
Trivia: The US used 19 million gallons of herbicides between 1962 and 1971 during Operation Ranch Hand.
Agent Orange Seminar in Napoleon held Saturday, April 6, 2003. The following is partial copy and paste from my report on the seminar the Ohio AMVET News. "The seminar was jointly sponsored by AMVETS Post 1313 of Napoleon and the United Auto Workers local union at the Tenneco plant.
There was plenty of audience interaction with the presenter, AMVETS Department of Ohio State Service Officer (SSO) David Barker who is stationed at the Chillicothe VAMC.
The program began with a brief review of the speakers credentials followed by a review of the book In Search Of The Truth For The Vietnam Combat Veteran. There was in-depth coverage, of the diabetes type 2 and leukemia issues. SSO Barker reminded the veterans it was in 1991 that Army Scientist studies had linked diabetes and dioxin exposure. SSO Barker explained diabetes type 1 is usually referred to as juvenile diabetes and diabetes type 2 is often referred to as adult onset diabetes.
The Ohio AMVETS News had published an article on diabetes and herbicide exposure written by SSO Barker in 1986. The National Academy of Sciences did a comprehensive study again in 1998 and former Secretary Togo West rejected the study and had the issue revisited. The diabetes type 2 was again presented to the Acting, VA Secretary Herschel Gober in October of 2000 and Secretary Gober approved the condition November 9th of 2000.
After review of the book, SSO Barker brought several ignored issues to the forefront. He discussed the United States Air Force study released in 2000 which proves the Ranch Hand Study was severely flawed and showing a 26% higher rate of heart disorders in those veterans in the study comparison. SSO Barker has maintained for over a decade the probability of a direct relation of heart disorders and herbicide exposure.
There was also comparison of the birth defect issue which still remains stalled, even though the studies from the National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine clearly show a higher ratio of incidence for Cerebral Palsy which has been ignored.
There are several issues regarding Agent Orange and additional birth defects, which more than likely, will be brought to the forefront in the next several years of study. Many people do not understand that birth defects are reported to the authorities, at the birth of the child. Thus many defects such as learning disabilities; or sensory impairments may not be discovered for months or years. As a result many birth defects go unreported and these children suffer as a result.
The current dioxin levels and profound health problems existing today in Vietnam was reviewed and the 2002 World Health Organization report was made available to those present. SSO Barker strongly recommended those with Internet access to use the available research on line, to obtain information to assist them in learning about the dangers of dioxin."
PRESENTATION TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
David Barker brief background:
While earning my degree at Morris Harvey College, the University of Charleston, then graduate work at Marshall University, I worked at the DuPont plant in Charleston, WV.
Included in my duties was periodic assignment to the Research and Development "Small Lots Production." This is where DuPont developed herbicides.
My last year employed by DuPont, I was a Detail Foreman in the construction of a new herbicide manufacturing site. I learned first hand the dangers of herbicides. DuPont chose wisely not to manufacture this herbicide, as they considered it to risky.
I am employed by Ohio AMVETS representing veterans before the VA. I have filed over 15,000 Agent Orange related claims since February 1983. In 1984 I filed a claim for service connected compensation for a heart condition as a residual of exposure to Agent Orange for several clients.
After all I had in my possession reports of the tests results of rats exposed to herbicides 2,3,6,7-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. There was mention of heart damage as well as other recognized conditions. Those claims were denied.
Any condition not recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (then Administrator of the Veterans Administration), will by law be denied.
Also, I feel the issues of carcinoma have been to long ignored and should be addressed immediately for those still surviving. If the cancer diagnosis is other than one of the very few recognized the VA denies the claim. Carcinoma claims are routinely rejected as those cancers do not meet VA required specifics.
Finally a scientific study was done in Vietnam to determine the affects on human population regarding the use of Agent Orange. The study at my last review has not been developed in this nation for the benefit of those veterans exposed while on active duty.
It is apparent to me there has been significant downplay to, outright ignoring the studies.
In my solitary office, there appears an extreme imbalance of Vietnam veterans, suffering from peripheral neuropathy who are denied if the veteran was not diagnosed with diabetes type 2. It is time to reopen the study of neurological conditions.
We shall review briefly these studies made by independent sources. Dr. Hoang Dinh Cau, chairman of the government-supported National Committee for Investigation of the Consequences of Chemicals used in the Vietnam War, known as the 10-80 Committee, has studied the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnamese people over two decades.
Dr. Cau is not as guarded as others at Tu Du Hospital in discussing the use of the herbicide, which contained dioxin, a contaminant many Western researchers called the most toxic chemical discovered by mankind so far. This is also stated in my book IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR VIETNAM COMBAT VETERANS. The original essay "Poison: Agent Orange" published by The Ohio AMVET in 1983 is the chapter with that statement.
"We have recognized many kinds of birth defects associated with dioxin," Dr. Cau said, opening up a book with photographs of Vietnamese civilians identified as Agent Orange victims.
Several of the photos depict badly deformed infants. The children in Vietnam suffer a broad range of birth defects: many have unformed limbs, others are mentally handicapped and those with extremely enlarged heads.
Vietnamese scientists and government officials believe the children, along with hundreds of thousands of other Vietnamese are victims of the massive amounts of Agent Orange herbicide that US forces dumped on South Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
Vietnamese researchers, as well as some of their Western colleagues, know that the more than 11 million gallons of Agent Orange that the US military introduced to South Vietnamese ecosystems created a public-health nightmare from which Vietnam has not recovered.
Vietnamese scientists believe the dioxin contamination has caused not only birth defects, but also respiratory cancers, heart problems and diabetes.
In 2000 the US Air Force released a study indicating a link between Agent Orange exposure, diabetes and heart disease.
It has been well over 30 years since the United States stopped using Agent Orange. Thus many seriously ill patients have already died.
Pilot surveys conducted by Vietnamese researchers in December 1998 found that between 800,000 and 1 million Vietnamese had Agent Orange related health problems, in a report released in 1999 by Dr. Le Cao Dai, executive director of the Agent Orange Victims Fund of the Vietnam Red Cross.
As much as 100,000 of those affected by the herbicide suffered some form of birth defect, the surveys found.
The United States thus far has nothing to do with research, into the connection between Agent Orange spraying and health problems among Vietnamese.
The US government has dismissed without review the accuracy and reliability of Vietnamese studies on Agent Orange.
The Dr. Cau 10-80 Committee was so named because it was founded in October 1980.
It is the only Vietnamese organization to attempt systematic research into the effects of Agent Orange.
Dr. Cau said the Vietnamese government had tried studying the mysterious herbicides that the United States used as far back as 1965, but lacked the resources and knowledge to do so effectively.
"The Vietnamese Army never used Agent Orange, so they had no experts to study it," he said.
Vietnamese researchers now know that the dioxin from Agent Orange continues to affect Vietnamese born long after the war because it moves up the food chain, accumulating in higher concentrations as it goes.
According to Dr. Dai's report, 85 to 90 percent of the dioxin detected in the Vietnamese comes from contaminated food.
After an area was sprayed, the report explains, the dioxin from Agent Orange contaminated organic matter in soil as well as river and lake mud.
Animals, fish and shrimp then ingested some of the soil and mud and became contaminated.
Humans, in turn, were exposed to dioxin when they consumed contaminated animal, fish or shrimp products.
Testing for dioxin is a difficult and expensive procedure. One dioxin test costs about $700 in Vietnam, which can quickly destroy budgets of Vietnamese researchers.
People living in sprayed areas as well as the Northern Vietnamese who served in the South during the war have higher levels of dioxin in their bodies than those who have always lived in non-sprayed areas in the North.
A study of human fat tissue in 1984-'85 found that dioxin levels in people who lived in sprayed areas of South Vietnam were 10 times higher than in people living in the North, and two to three times higher than in people residing in industrialized nations.
A 1988 World Health Organization study comparing levels of dioxin in breast milk worldwide found that nursing South Vietnamese women had significantly higher levels of the contaminant in their breast milk than their counterparts in Hanoi and in industrial countries. Breast milk from one heavily sprayed area had a level of dioxin eight times higher than samples taken from those in Hanoi, and almost five times higher than samples taken from women in the United States.
According to Dr. Dai's report, more recent tests have shown that dioxin levels in the environment and human tissues have decreased over time, while dioxin in commonly used foods has returned to normal. Dr. Dai wrote in his report that areas around former US air bases remain dioxin hot spots. His concerns about base sites are predicated partly on a 1998 environmental assessment of an area around a former US Special Forces base in Aluoi province.
In a report release by the United States Air Force in 2000 stated "this research, constituted the first systematic environmental assessment of residual dioxin's in Vietnam." This was according to David Levy, a scientist involved in the Vietnam study who is vice president for Hatfield Consultants Ltd.
"In one area around the site of the former base, dioxins are present in duck fat and fish fat at high levels," Levy said. Similar concentrations in Canada trigger a regulatory response, such as food consumption advisories and closure of commercial fisheries.
Levy also supports more outside help for research on the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam.
He said that Vietnam, with the contrast between the unsprayed North and sprayed South, provides what may be the best natural laboratory in the world to study links between exposure to the herbicide and health problems.
It was in 1991 that Army Scientist studies had linked diabetes and dioxin exposure. As you well know diabetes type 1 is usually referred to as juvenile diabetes and diabetes type 2 is often referred to as adult onset diabetes.
Now when a physician diagnoses adult onset insulin dependent diabetes as type 1 that claim is most often turned down as the NAS study indicates only diabetes type 2 is related to Agent Orange exposure. The Ohio AMVETS News had published an article on diabetes and herbicide exposure written by me in 1986. The National Academy of Sciences did a comprehensive study again in 1998 and former Secretary Togo West rejected the study and had the issue revisited. The diabetes type 2 was again presented to the Acting, VA Secretary Herschel Gober in October of 2000 and Secretary Gober approved the condition November 9th of 2000. The United States Air Force study released in 2000 proved the Ranch Hand Study was severely flawed and showing a 26% higher rate of heart disorders in those veterans in the study comparison. I have maintained for over a decade the probability of a direct relation of heart disorders and herbicide exposure.
There was also comparison of the birth defect issue which still remains stalled, even though the studies from the National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine clearly show a higher ratio of incidence for Cerebral Palsy which has been ignored.
There are several issues regarding Agent Orange and additional birth defects, which more than likely, will be brought to the forefront in the next several years of study. Many people do not understand that birth defects are reported to the authorities, at the birth of the child. Thus many defects such as learning disabilities; or sensory impairments may not be discovered for months or years. As a result many birth defects go unreported and these children suffer as a result.
In terms of epidemiology, both prospective studies, similar to the US Air Force Ranch Hand study, and retrospective studies, similar to those carried out by Vietnamese medical scientists, should be done, Levy said. Dr. Cau of Vietnam's 10-80 Committee is not too optimistic about the possibility of establishing causal links that would measure up to Western scientific standards. "A long time has already passed," he said. "Mitigation of Agent Orange's effects on human health and the environment is the goal now."
It is time the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to request the National Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Medicine, to complete research on effects of Agent Orange and the heart. Then properly assist those exposed, or their survivors, to receive just compensation.
VETERANS AND AGENT ORANGE UPDATE 2004 (2005)
The report has been released with little change. We have gone through a two year period of study and research with the National Academy of Sciences, for the VA and the net result was a clarification on insulin dependent diabetes type 2. To me it was extremely disappointing, that so many subjects remained untouched and new conditions were not added. Those exposed to Agent Orange, must again wait on those who have little sense of urgency. The now aging Vietnam veterans, find their ranks starting to thin. Many Agent Orange exposed veterans have met premature death, as a result of conditions many strongly believe are the result of the exposure.
The VAO Update 2004 has supposedly clarified the insulin dependent diabetes type 2 as a result of my personal testimony before the NAS committee in July 2004. In discussions with committee members it was stated they (the committee) were unaware the VA was denying claims for some veterans, due to insulin dependent being classified as diabetes type 1. The VA position was diabetes type 1 was juvenile onset, rather than adult onset which is known as diabetes type 2.
The report defined the conditions "diabetes mellitus is a group of heterogeneous metabolic disorders characterized by hyperglycemia and quantitative or qualitative deficiency of insulin action (Orchard et al., 1992). Although all form share hyperglycemia, the pathogenic processes involved in its development differ. Most diabetes fall into two categories: Type 1 diabetes is characterized by an absolute deficiency of insulin caused by the destruction of insulin producing cells. In the pancreas.; type 2 diabetes is characterized by a combination of resistance to the actions of insulin and inadequate secretion of insulin, called relative insulin deficiency. In the old classification systems type 1 diabetes was called insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or juvenile onset diabetes mellitus; type 2 diabetes was called non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus
The report defined the conditions "diabetes mellitus is a group of heterogeneous metabolic disorders characterized by hyperglycemia and quantitative or qualitative deficiency of insulin action (Orchard et al., 1992). Although all form share hyperglycemia, the pathogenic processes involved in its development differ. Most diabetes fall into two categories: Type 1 diabetes is characterized by an absolute deficiency of insulin caused by the destruction of insulin producing cells. In the pancreas.; type 2 diabetes is characterized by a combination of resistance to the actions of insulin and inadequate secretion of insulin, called relative insulin deficiency. In the old classification systems type 1 diabetes was called insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or juvenile onset diabetes mellitus; type 2 diabetes was called non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or adult onset diabetes mellitus. The modern classification system recognizes that type 2 can occur in children and also can require insulin. For both types, long term complications can include cardiovascular disease nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy and increased vulnerability to infections. Maintaining correct blood sugar concentrations within the normal range is crucial for preventing complications...
The etiology of diabetes type 2 is unknown, but three major components have been identified: peripheral insulin resistance (thought by many to be primary) in target tissues (muscle, adipose tissue, liver) a defect in -cell insulin secretion; and hepatic glucose overproduction. In states of insulin resistance, insulin secretion is initially higher for each concentration of glucose, compared with that for people without diabetes. That hyperinsulinemic state is a compensation for peripheral resistance and can often maintain normal glucose levels for years. Eventually, -cell compensation become inadequate and there is progression to overt diabetes with concomitant hyperglycemia. The reason the -cell cease to produce sufficient insulin is not known.
A lawsuit was entered in the U.S. District Court, Brooklyn, by the Vietnamese government, relating to Agent Orange and the suit was dismissed. This suit could have well been exactly what the Vietnam veteran needed, to substantiate the claims of many diseases and birth defects. Ironic but true, this is the same court which let the chemical companies off the hook for $180 million dollars back in the 1980's!
We shall review briefly these studies made by independent sources. Dr. Hoang Dinh Cau, chairman of the government-supported National Committee for Investigation of the Consequences of Chemicals used in the Vietnam War, known as the 10-80 Committee, has studied the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnamese people over two decades. Dr. Cau is not as guarded as others at Tu Du Hospital in discussing the use of the herbicide, which contained dioxin, a contaminant many Western researchers called the most toxic chemical discovered by mankind so far. This was also stated in my book "
IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH FOR VIETNAM COMBAT VETERANS."
The original essay "Poison: Agent Orange" published by The Ohio AMVET in 1983 is the chapter with that statement. "We have recognized many kinds of birth defects associated with dioxin," Dr. Cau said, opening up a book with photographs of Vietnamese civilians identified as Agent Orange victims.
Several of the photos depict badly deformed infants. The children in Vietnam suffer a broad range of birth defects: many have unformed limbs, others are mentally handicapped and those with extremely enlarged heads. Vietnamese scientists and government officials believe the children, along with hundreds of thousands of other Vietnamese are victims of the massive amounts of Agent Orange herbicide that US forces dumped on South Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
Vietnamese researchers, as well as some of their Western colleagues, know that the more than 11 million gallons of Agent Orange that the US military introduced to South Vietnamese ecosystems created a public-health nightmare from which Vietnam has not recovered. Vietnamese scientists believe the dioxin contamination has caused not only birth defects, but also respiratory cancers, heart problems and diabetes. In 2000 the US Air Force released a study indicating a link between Agent Orange exposure, diabetes and heart disease. It has been well over 30 years since the United States stopped using Agent Orange. Thus many seriously ill patients have already died.
So our Agent Orange plight struggles on.
VA REGULATIONS
According to regulations any Vietnam veteran who feels they were exposed to Agent Orange; or, any Atomic veterans exposed to ionizing radiation is entitled to VA healthcare with no co-payment. After several years of discussion the VAMC decided to waive the co-payment on the prescriptions of conditions the veteran acquired as a result of their exposure to the herbicides. The director posted the notice on the e-mail system used in the VAMC of the policy.
Wow, "putting veterans first!"
I appreciate all of the hard work and effort the VAMC personnel in Chillicothe have contributed to the Agent Orange issue. I wish all VAMC personnel had their attitude.
Since arriving as AMVETS Accredited representative et al. I have believed this is the best place in the system and I still do. I believe people in the Central Office are always looking for loop holes to inflict as much cost, on the veteran, as they possibly can. It is an old attitude of mine that I try to suppress but flares up now and then.
The current issues also referred to those not in Korea or Vietnam. If the veteran was not around Agent Orange I certainly agree 100%, that Agent Orange exposure is much less likely UNLESS the person was in an area shipping the material; or handling the material as in loading it on C-130's at the AFB in Guam; or cleaning a C-130 in Thailand.
We all need to use common sense in the issue. I know for a fact that the VA conceded exposure to all veterans who served in-country from 1965 to 1972. Agent orange was used from 2-13-1961 to the end of 1971. If a veteran is asked by a VAMC employee if he or she were exposed they are leading that veteran to possible incorrect assumptions. The VA conceded exposure to all in-country Vietnam veterans. That question should not be asked! Any person who is a veterans service officer should know that question is out of line. I hope we will permanently resolve this issue soon.
How much exposure?
The VA doesn't concern itself with how much concentration of Agent Orange was used in a certain area. The VA conceded many years ago that if you were in-country from 1965 to 71 you were exposed. The fact is if you were in Long Binh during that period you had a higher exposure than most veterans. The information came from Duty Officers Logs I obtained back in 1983 when I was writing a series of articles on Agent Orange. Most of them are in the book you have on your computer.
The problem we have with conditions is the VA agreed to abide with the findings of the National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine. Their reports are slow coming out and every two years (or so) a report is issued. The VA complicates it by asking for rare (most don't have) conditions to be developed first. This does two things.
First it shows progress. Second the progress will be less costly, as it goes to the minimal amount of veterans. An example is the birth defects. The study recognizes spina bifida (SB), but not cerebral palsy (CP). There is a higher rate of incidence on CP than SB but many more children with CP. The VA has shown they are doing something. However it is for far less people than they could.
So we have the age old problem of we all know the situation; but, those in power only do what is required and the politicians go on their merry way reaping all they can and leaving the veteran outside looking in.
We need action on these issues and we need it now! NAVY & AO
Probably the most divided group of veterans in the history of America is the beleaguered Vietnam veteran. This group of veterans were generally rejected by the American people early in the war that none of them started. Most of those serving in Vietnam from 1959 through the literal end of the war were patriotic young people who desired to defend the United States from her enemies. Sometimes the young veteran would have a problem of sorting out just who was the enemy. In Vietnam, the natives who worked during the day turned into the guerilla at night.
We also had the enemy at home. Those who protested the war, for one reason or another.
Many of those were prominent politicians, actors and education leaders. There positions were well choreographed to make those serving look as they were interfering with the chosen lifestyle of the Vietnamese people. When in reality the Vietnamese people were being terrorized by their Communist brethren.
We also have the problem of those veterans who separate themselves as 'in-country' and those called 'Era vets' a situation not seen during WWII or the Korean war. In the years I have worked with veterans this one issue of were you 'in-country' has caused a great schism in the ranks of those who served from 1959 to 1975.
When the Vietnam veteran returned home they discovered many health problems those who did not go to Vietnam did not suffer. These veterans went to the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) and made attempts to discover the common link to those problems. It was not long before herbicide exposure was the culprit. For reasons never fully explained the VA rejected nearly every idea put forth from this group of veterans. Even their fellow veterans from other conflicts rejected their quest for answers.
Over two decades we sought information to link herbicide exposure and the health problems which were taking lives at early ages in this select group. It appeared the more research by the supporters of the Vietnam veterans, the more resistance by the government and some of the veterans of prior conflicts. It was not until the San Francisco District Court Of Appeals ruling in which Agent Orange went to trial in San Francisco and was found guilty. On May 3, 1989 in the U.S. District Court, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson held that former Veterans Administration head, Thomas K. Turnage had imposed "an impermissibly demanding test" for determining whether an ailment could be linked to dioxin. A position many of us had stated for over a decade.
The ruling was not appealed by the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This has opened the doors for new opportunities for those who have been maimed by this, the deadliest of man made synthetic chemical compounds, TCDD or as we know it Agent Orange. Multiple Thousands of claims nearly 34,000, at that time had been denied over the years. So in the next decade the VA established regulations concerning diseases and exposure. The regulations have been changed as new diseases were recognized. In the early 1990's those who were in the adjacent waters to Vietnam were presumed exposed. When diabetes type 2 was recognized in November of 2000, the regulations were revisited by those in the legal departments of the VA. The presumption of exposure to herbicides was changed by the VA..
The VA has denied many claims since mid 2001, stating the veteran was not exposed due to the fact he did not go ashore. This is an incorrect assumption based on economics and not fact. The current Agent Orange exposure in-country regulation: "(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1112)
(6) Diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. (i) For the purposes of this section, the term ``herbicide agent'' means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, specifically: 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD; cacodylic acid; and picloram. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(4))
(ii) The diseases listed at Sec. 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acne form disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service.
(iii) A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service.
The last date on which such a veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975.
'Service in the Republic of Vietnam' includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam."
When a person is within the geographical or territorial limits of the land mass, that person is considered by international law within the nation. There are recorded incidents of U.S. warships being seized (USS Pueblo 1968) and U.S. fishing vessels (Peru 1964), as well as the US Navy boarding Russian vessels (Cuba 1962).
Thus my position has been accepted as law, by the Executive Branch of the United States of America. There are no provisions in Title 38 of the United States Code, for any department, agency or division to deny due process under accepted treaty, law or regulations of the United States of America.
THE U.S. NAVY MEMORIAL LOG ENTRY FOR DAVID A. BARKER
Since 1977, I have represented veterans in their claims before the Department of Veteran Affairs. To lesser extent, the Social Security Administration, the military and naval services.
As most sailors, my Navy experience will live with me throughout my lifetime. In my experience as a Veterans Service Officer, I do realize we have a tendency to remember the best of times and forget those days of struggle and woe.
I wish to leave my thoughts of our involvement in the infamous Bay of Pigs, Cuba incident. I served aboard the USS Cony DDE 508. We were one of seven destroyers of DESRON 28, Task Group Alpha serving with the USS Essex CV-9 and the USS San Marcos LSD-25, in the actual waters off the coast of southern Cuba. The event was from Monday, April 17th to Friday April 21, 1961. But not just another work week.
This story is true; but it almost falls into a "sea story" category. We were not given any indication, of any change in our normal "out to sea" for ASW exercises. We all expected to be out for our normal two weeks and return for two weeks in port. As our DESRON was two in two out. When the ship Quartermasters were ordered to no longer log our position and no longer to use the sextant. We all became suspicious.
Our Captain (CDR. Frank Dunham) who with our XO (Lt. Jack Wilson) did all of the readings and logs. None of the crew had access to any logs or equipment to allow us to figure out where we were. We did know for sure we were not in our usual patrol areas and it was getting hot, in temperature as well as pressure. Neither the Captain nor the XO spoke of what was going on. When we asked we only received a smile. Fortunately for the Cony sailors we had two outstanding leaders, both were very crew oriented. The smiles were seemingly sincere; but we understood.
The seven destroyers were chosen to go into the bay , they were the Bache, Beale, Cony, Conway, Eaton, Murray and the Waller. The Essex and San Marcos remained further at sea. At this time, I was a leading seaman and in charge of the side cleaners. We were instructed to go over the side and paint off the five of our hull number. We became the 08 rather than 508. We then painted off the name Cony on the stern. Then our Commission pennant and U.S. Flag were removed; there was no longer any question of what we were going to do. We still didn't know where or why. We had unknown (to us) civilians come aboard, VIA our motor whaleboat. Although I was a member of the boat crew, we were not to speak to them at any time, for any reason.
As documented by author Peter Wyden in his book THE BAY OF PIGS, THE UNTOLD STORY (Simon & Schuster 1978), our ships did meet some resistance. It is further documented in the VFW Magazine (September 1993), "a whaleboat carrying sailors heavily armed with Browning automatic rifles, from the Cony, was beached at one stage. While rescuing Brigade survivors, it was fired on by a Cuban helicopter." Actual small arms fire struck the Cony. A round from a Cuban artillery piece was fired over the bow of at least one of the destroyers. We went to GQ. It seemed as if GQ lasted for the entire five days, but I am sure we had breaks in the time or at least went to a relaxed battle condition.
Several times during the invasion we were certain we were at war with Cuba. However we were unaware that the President of the United States had altered the plans of the invasion. Of course we sailors, other than the Captain and XO had no idea of where we were, or what we were doing. In an amusing fact, it is a lot of what we experience today, from the layman's perspective. While underway to our port, we were instructed by the Captain, not to discuss any event we had observed or heard about. After our return to port, one of the crew members of the USS Conway had written a poem of the Bay of Pigs, the poem was briskly distributed throughout the DESRON and retrieved just about as quick. We were again instructed not to discuss the events with anyone.
When I first read the book BAY OF PIGS: THE UNTOLD STORY, I called Captain Dunham and asked him if we could finally discuss that event. The skipper told me we were now declassified and could tell the world. For the first time in my life in 1978 I told family and friends, not one seemed impressed at all. Too little, too late.
My last chapter is not yet written!
Click On Bar To Go To Main Page