NEW: Agent Orange linked to ‘aggressive’ bone marrow cancers in Vietnam veterans

(forwarded by Paul Bergeron)
Agent Orange exposure is a recognized risk factor for several types of bone marrow cancers, and is a presumptive condition for U.S. veterans seeking health and disability benefits. These include multiple myeloma and, based on recent research, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). 

Confirmed Bone Marrow Cancers:
VA officially recognizes the following bone marrow-related conditions as presumptively linked to Agent Orange exposure:

1. Multiple Myeloma: This is a cancer of the plasma cells, a type of white blood cell found in the bone marrow. The VA considers it a presumptive condition, which means affected veterans do not have to prove a direct connection between their service exposure and the disease to be eligible for benefits.
2. Chronic B-cell Leukemias: This group of blood cancers affects B-cells, which also originate in the bone marrow and are part of the immune system. 

Emerging Evidence: Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS):
Until recently, the link between Agent Orange and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) was less clear, creating barriers for veterans seeking care and disability benefits. However, significant new research, presented at the 2025 American Society of Hematology annual meeting and published in the journal Blood, has established a strong association.
The study identified genetic mutations tied to earlier diagnosis and faster progression of the disease, he said. “What we’re seeing is that Agent Orange added a mutation — and that mutation sets patients on the road to cancer 50 years later,” researchers stated.
These findings are expected to help formalize the recognition of MDS as a presumptive condition, aiding veterans in accessing the care they need. 

Key findings from this research indicate that exposed veterans:
• Have a higher risk of developing MDS.
• Tend to be diagnosed at a younger age.
• Exhibit more aggressive forms of the disease with a higher number of harmful genetic mutations.
• Are nearly twice as likely to see their condition progress to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). 

Actionable Steps for Veterans:
If you or a loved one are a veteran who was exposed to Agent Orange and have been diagnosed with a bone marrow cancer:
• Check Eligibility: Veterans who served in specific areas (e.g., Vietnam, the Korean DMZ) during defined time frames are presumed to have been exposed.
• Apply for Benefits: You may be eligible for VA health care and disability compensation. You can learn more about the process and eligible conditions on the official VA Public Health website. While many health problems such as MDS are not recognized by VA as presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure, a claim can proceed for a case-by-case adjudication. This MDS study can help support such a claim. Seek help from an accredited veterans service officer, such as from DAV, VFW, state or local governments.
• Seek Specific Care: The findings from recent studies suggest that Agent Orange-related MDS has unique genetic patterns, which might influence specific treatment decisions. Consult with a hematology specialist. Make sure your health care providers are aware of your Agent Orange exposure history!
• Get an Exam: Eligible veterans can receive a free Agent Orange Registry health exam to document exposure-related health concerns. 

VA "SKIPS" TELLING QUALIFIED DISABLED VETS OF ENTITLEMENTS

THAT'S RIGHT. According to the VA's own Inspector General Report released yesterday, VA claims adjudicators don't bother telling seriously ill...sometimes terminally ill...veterans of entitlement to the extremely valuable benefit called "special monthly compensation," or SMC When the IG asked why, they were told "Because we don't have to." Isn't that clever? Imagine the money VA saves by establishing a program with help from Congress, and then doesn't bother with delivery to qualified vets. Perhaps VA feels if vets didn't ask about SMC, they don't deserve it, even in cases with terminal illnesses like ALS.

SMC is an extremely complicated program poorly understood even by VA's own claims staff. They have to use a "SMC Calculator" to figure it out. SMC is meant for the more seriously disabled veterans whose illnesses or injuries go beyond the 100% total disability rate, and SMC is paid rather than the regular monthly stipend. This is vital assistance, and SMC addresses challenging situations where vets are homebound, blind, lost use of extremities, confined to bed, severe TBI, require home medical care and similar cases. You don't want to be so disabled as to qualify, but if you do, SMC helps deal with such staggering problems.

SMC-S is for homebound totally disabled veterans, and currently pays $3228, or $255 more than the base 100% compensation. The program can compensate the most seriously disabled veterans as much as $8510 per month, with a couple thousand eligible.

You can easily imagine the importance of SMC to those so disabled as to qualify. That leads to the question the IG raised when checking into how victims of ALS are treated. The answer was a horrid one...VA claims folks don't bother telling vets with this terminal illness. Citing a narrow interpretation of a case that reached the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, VA says they just don't have to, and it is on the veteran, not VA, to find out about SMC.

Lesson learned? If you have a serious disability, very carefully read up on special monthly compensation, and get help from a veterans service organization like the DAV or VFW to get your paperwork done right.

I still wonder how VA's VA M21-1MR rulebook can state that SMC is an implied claim in every disability claim, and yet not review SMC approval or denial in so many decisions.

DAV HONORS VBA LEADER THOMAS MURPHY. DAV SHOULD BE ASHAMED!

WHAT THE HECK? As a lifetime DAV member, I'm outraged! DAV has just debased itself and honored the administrator who bottled up our C-123 claims for four years, Mr. Thomas Murphy of the Veterans Benefit Administration. DAV forgets it was Mr. Murphy who approved the infamous no-bid sole-source $600,000 contract to Al Young to oppose Agent Orange claims. DAV forgets its own powerful denunciation of VA and that contract. Only with a blank memory could DAV or any other veterans organization lower itself to "honor" Mr. Murphy. Background: Along with Major Marlene Wentworth, I sat in front of Mr. Murphy in his office the afternoon of February 28, 2013 and read back to him his toxic September 25, 2012 advisory opinion in which he personally denied a C-123 veteran’s disability claim that the regional office had wanted to approve.Each of the four pages of Murphy’s opinion reeked of mistakes and revealed his passion in preventing C-123 claims. He excelled in that passion by denying 100% of our claims for over four years. For this disservice to thousands of C-123 veterans DAV now chooses to honor him? Outrageous! The thrust of that advisory opinion back in 2012 was his dismissal of all expert input establishing a veteran’s exposure from our Agent Orange-contaminated C-123 aircraft. Supporting the claim were reports from federal agencies, including the CDC/ATSDR, NIH, US Public Health Service, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Dozens of experts of the Committee of Concerned Scientists and Physicians also confirmed C-123 veterans’ exposure injuries. 

It is my understanding this particular application had more supporting evidence than any other VA disability claim ever submitted. Where typically a doctor’s note, some proof of service and perhaps an outside expert opinion would accompany a disability claim, this C-123 claim had a full-court press of government and independent experts, all making clear the fact of C-123 Agent Orange exposure. It was, in VA terms, “an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.”

None of which sufficed for Mr. Murphy. Determined to maintain the zero-approval stone wall he and others built against C-123 claims, he simply dismissed everything. He said these scientists and physicians, many of whom previously were VA and IOM experts, weren’t even qualified to comment.

Most outrageous was his dismissal of the report by Dr. Thomas Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/ATSDR. Dr. Sinks’ opinion on C-123 Agent Orange was dramatic: C-123 vets had exposure 182-times military safety limits and face a 200-fold greater risk of cancers. Later, Sinks' report would prove pivotal in the final IOM report confirming C-123 exposure injuries.

The Sinks report was also affirmed by the CDC/ATSDR director Dr. Christopher Portier and other NIH executives, including Rear Admiral R.Ikeda MD, US Public Health Service.

Not nearly enough for Mr. Murphy, who trashed the CDC/ATSDR report:

Read carefully Mr. Murphy’s last sentence: "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."  Read that he did not repeat the frightening CDC/ATSDR details about exposures 182-times safety limits, or increased cancer risks.

Agent Orange is harmless? No health effects? Mr. Murphy summarized the CDC/ATSDR report about our 200-fold greater risk of cancers as “no adverse health effects?”

Later, a VA spokesperson called that “an unfortunate choice of words,” but it sufficed for Mr. Murphy’s purpose of ensuring that no C-123 claims would get past his desk. Years would pass before the first claim did succeed in 2015.

With his staff also present, I read his statement to him during our meeting on February 28, 2013 and Mr. Murphy said it would stand. He also said no evidence from whatever expert would permit C-123 claim approval because VHA had already decided we were never exposed. Meanwhile. on the other side of its official mouth, VA was falsely insisting that all our claims were evaluated on a case-by-case facts-proven basis. 

For Mr. Murphy’s mistreatment of thousands of C-123 veterans and his failure to follow his own VAM21-1MR regulation, DAV now stoops to “honor” this Agent Orange claim opponent. Totally disgraceful!

Agent Orange, the C-123, and VA: My summary of it all

(article I wrote for the VFW magazine)

For vets concerned with Agent Orange, and vets concerned with how VA will deal with similar hazards going forward.

Why care? Because we got our Westover, Pittsburgh and Rickenbaker veterans between $48M-$240 million in compensation. It is even possible the total may be over a QUARTER BILLION dollars, but even more important is the life-saving VA medical care now provided.

We accomplished something that will affect all veterans from now on, as regards line-of-duty chemical and biological hazards. I am Wes Carter, a third-generation life member of St Cloud MN VFW Post 428, and a St. Cloud native now retired to Fort Collins Colorado. Retirement has meant time with grandchildren, and also time for volunteer service with veterans, in keeping with VFW core values.

Veterans' advocacy projects are dear to me. The first turned out to be the hardest and longest. It was to seek disability benefits for members of the C-123 Veterans Association, an informal group I started that became recognized as the negotiating voice with the VA.

Our folks are mostly the men and women who flew or maintained these former Agent Orange spray aircraft in the years following Vietnam. The project was pure Westover, labor and money, only from the 74th, 905th and 731st. Vets from Westover, Pittsburgh, Rickenbacker, Elgin, Howard (Panama) and Clark (Philippines) Air Bases all benefited.

VA insisted, even though the aircraft repeatedly tested as heavily contaminated with Agent Orange, there was no way the contamination actually exposed us to the deadly toxin in the herbicide. I had to prove VA and its Agent Orange consultant wrong. This involved lots of travel to Washington DC between the years 2011-2015. Postage, websites, FOIA fees, printing and other huge expenses all added up.

It was (is) a good use of my own Air Force retirement and 100% percent VA disability. I was perceived as a more earnest advocate because there was nothing personally to gain since I was already VA disabled...the beneficiaries were my fellow crewmembers and our maintenance troops.

Challenging the VA involved contacting scientists in and out of government but particularly those in the CDC and the National Institutes of Health. Here I found great support from experts who disagreed with the VA and insisted our exposures were very harmful and, in fact, we should have been flying the toxic airplanes wearing full HAZMAT protection.

Dr. Jeannie Stillman of Columbia University acted as corresponding scientist for the Concerned Scientists and Physicians, a group of dozens of experts affirming our veterans exposures to deadly dioxin.

The VA responded by saying these experts’ opinions were unacceptable, and that VA had “an overwhelming preponderance of evidence” against our exposure injuries having been caused by Agent Orange on the aircraft.

Some of VA's so-called evidence was previously discredited information from Dow and Monsanto. Most of the VA position was only its policy against post-Vietnam Agent Orange exposure claims. Internal VA memos even insisted that the department "hold the line" against us. Eventually, it became clear that the VA "scientific studies" didn't exist and certainly weren't credible science.

We countered VA arguments with stacks of evidence and expert opinions from medical schools and other universities as well as independent scientists and several government agencies. Several scientists re-examined all C-123 toxicology tests, concluded that our veterans had been exposed via dermal, inhalation and ingestion routes of exposure. and published their peer-reviewed report in the journal Environmental Research. There was general agreement everywhere that we been exposed... everywhere EXCEPT the VA.

Enough controversy was created, with enough proof of our exposure gathered, that eventually VA submitted the issue to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science for its investigation and public hearings.

I testified at four of these hearings and offered input regarding aircraft and aircrew details, Agent Orange and dioxin toxicology, history of the aircraft, relevant United States code, VA's misinformation plus data on the post-Vietnam use of these former Agent Orange spray C-123s. I explained how VA and the Air Force considered the C-123s to be "Agent Orange spray aircraft" until the first veterans' claims surfaced. Our FOIA search uncovered many AF tests establishing severe contamination, disproving VA's insistence on only one test on one airplane. The VA consultant testified to IOM that the aircraft were not contaminated but we then showed that in 2009 he recommended Air Force destruction of all airplanes as toxic waste.

CDC testified our airplanes were so contaminated we should have been flying in full hazmat. CDC explained that our cancer risks are much, much higher.

The Institute of Medicine Committee of distinguished scientists and physicians considered the issue for nearly a year before publishing their conclusion: Yes, C-123 aircrews and maintenance staff were indeed exposed and harmed. Importantly, IOM reported that VA and the military routinely ignored or minimized evidence of Agent Orange illnesses. The VA consultant was found to have manipulated or misstated scientific and historical evidence affirming our exposures.

On January 18 2015 VA Secretary Bob McDonald finally authorized full VA benefits for our veterans if diagnosed with any of the recognized Agent Orange ailments.

This had never been done before by any veterans' organization. Along the way, I found powerful help from leadership in the American Legion, DAV, Jewish War Veterans, VFW, Vietnam Veterans, Air Force Association, Reserve Officers Association. Experts and leaders in NIH and CDC also leaned heavily on VA for us. Yale Law School published an outstanding legal brief, and major law firms provided over $120,000 of pro bono legal help as we fought the VA and USAF to get hidden documents released.

The Vietnam Veterans of America helped with a $3000 grant for travel expenses, and VFW leadership worked with other veterans organizations to press Congress and the VA for a resolution and full benefits for our 2100 men and women aircrew and maintenance veterans. I’m very grateful!

We found a sympathetic media from the very first. The Air Force Times, ProPublica, Virginian-Pilot, Boston Globe, Pittsburgh Gazette, Washington Post, veterans organizations magazines, the Springfield Republican, Gannett newspapers, Tom Philpot military.com, the Portland Oregon Oregonian, NPR, CBS and so many others spoke up for us.

Vietnam Veterans of America is active in presenting townhall meetings about Agent Orange and I've put on several of these. Somehow, there are always Vietnam veterans who don't know that their prostate cancer for diabetes or other ailments entitled them to VA benefits, so these are essential educational programs with great fellowship.

Other veterans’ issues are also a concern. In May the governor of Colorado signed legislation that I initiated to provide partial property tax relief to about 700 totally disabled military retirees. When we first moved to Colorado I read the state constitution which provided for property tax relief to 100% VA AND totally disabled military retirees, BUT noticed the enabling law only mentioned VA. Our law was thus in conflict with our constitution. It only took five months to fix that and it was hugely satisfying to get my free pen from the governor signing the new legislation.

While working on that issue I was shocked to learn that Colorado’s Gold Star Wives are not provided any property tax relief such as offered survivors of VA 100% disabled veterans. I’ve been appointed the Gold Star Wives official adviser, and helping these widows is my next project! They need help...VA provides only an inadequate $1252/month to these women who have sacrificed so much.

We are also still working to get retroactive benefits for our C-123 Agent Orange vets because VA back-dates awards only to June 2015. That is unfair because benefits are usually based on the date a claim is submitted. Some of our folks have claims as old as sixteen years.

We got one other change. VA's Veterans Health Administration has a section called Post-Deployment Public Health, led by retired Army physician Dr. Ralph Erickson. This unit will now be tracking all servicemembers' potential exposures to chemical and biological hazards throughout their careers. The NIH scientists who affirmed our exposures also explained to VA the hazards of multi-toxin experiences... the add-on of toxin upon toxin and biohazard upon biohazard...all brewing up over time into mysterious ailments.

In the spring of 2015, during our final rounds of negotiations with VHA, VA general counsel, veterans organizations and congressional staffers, I identified biohazards that Reserve Component servicemembers will face. Posing a hypothetical, I forced VA to acknowledge present rules might not meet both military readiness and VA's duty to care for exposed personnel. Solutions were found, some proposed by the surgeons general of the departments and others as potential legislative steps.

Summary: my health Is really messed up but this kind of work had the benefit of being immensely satisfying, especially when other vets tell me how much their approved claims have meant to them and their families. At our reunion last month one of the older vets from the 905th came out to the club with his wife, and called me outside to offer his thanks for helping get his claim approved.

Wow... that meant so much to me and my wife, Joan.

There's a great need for ALL of us to keep serving our fellow veterans and our nation. It doesn't take money (although that helps.) It takes imagination and dedication which, as veterans, we've all been demonstrating all our lives

C-123 Vets Meet With Secretary McDonald

Secretary McDonald generously gave me over an hour yesterday afternoon for our private conversation tat the Denver DAV National Convention.
He was aware that our initial alarm about VA's statement to HuffPo about widows not being protected by the interim final rule was resolved by VA last Friday in their "reinterpretation" of the issue...in other words, the VA was led to do the right thing regarding widows/widowers' DIC but acted as though that was their intention all along.

Discussion:
1. VA disregarded years of confirmation from other federal agencies, failing to act when there was more than adequate "benefit of the doubt" evidence. The two VA C-123 Fact Sheets were discussed with the important point that errors littered the June 2013 letter to Senator Burr and VA failed to reveal the JSRRC information received four months earlier. VA failed their duty to be pro-veteran and non-adversarial and would be seen to have done so by the CAVC when appeals reach that forum.
2. VA disregarded (another word could be "suppressed") that 2013 Joint Services Records Research Center exposure confirmation from veterans, their attorneys, legislators, claims offices and BVA, as well as the May 2014 confirmation JSRRC began providing on individual C-123 veterans. This violated VCAA and VAM21-1MR.
I said the CAVC would find this a compelling argument in our favor and that unless retroactivity were provided appeals would be inevitable. We reviewed dates of interest, such as the May 2011 general "awakening" of C-123 vets to our exposures, and the fact all scientific information had been provided VA by the end of 2011 – all of which they ignored. We discussed the famous VA phrase, "VA has an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against C-123 claims."
3. I raised the VA OGC precedential opinions and how they should have led to veteran status per Title 38. He was already familiar with the "liberalizing" issue, and also with the fact that retroactivity had been recognized for the active duty C-123 vets, but not us. I pointed out that the DRO C-123 awards and the BVA decisions thus far had all recognized the retroactive claims. In the end, he promised to read all three essays.
I also reviewed the surprisingly small number of claims predating the June 19 2015 effective date, which if each were awarded 100% SC back to May 2011 would only total $1.2M additional cost to VA assuming the same average SC % on claims processed thus far, added to the VA OGC $47M forecast for C-123 issues (excluding medical costs)
4. I discussed my concerns about physician recruiting and retention, the need for skilled former military medics to conduct "sick calls" at VA day clinics as a physician force multiplier, acceptability of board credentials from the American Board of Physician Specialties, DO recruiting, and formation of a "VA Physician Reserve Corps" of departing docs to continue a lower level of service.

In conclusion, I was given twice the time than scheduled for our discussion and we ended only because I had to leave. He was sincere and agreed that VA could have acted sooner, and he'd review our request carefully. Thus far, I'm satisfied and now we'll wait to see if VA delivers any changes to the interim final rule.

Correction: C-123 Widows NOT abandoned by VA Interim Final Agent Orange Rule

This is an honor I've had to do twice. It is very hard. I wouldn't

like to turn to a C-123 widow and tell her VA has decided to

abandon her, which is exactly what VA has done.

From Huffington Post (Lynne Peebles, reporter) July 21,2015:

"Meagan Lutz, a spokeswoman with the VA, confirmed that the new help is only available beginning on June 19, when the rule was published, or from the subsequent filing date. Widows of C-123 veterans, she said, will not be eligible for the disability compensation." 

In an email from VA to the Vietnam Veterans of America, this "clarification" was offered late on Friday, July 31:

"I don’t know what the source of the below communication was but it is not correct.  As we discussed during our meetings with VSOs on the C-123 rulemaking, the survivor of a covered C-123 crew member would be entitled to DIC if the cause of the crew member’s death is service connected.  We would make that determination based upon a survivor’s DIC claim that is pending on or after the effective date of the regulation.  With respect to prior denials, there is nothing that prevents a survivor from reopening a claim based upon the new regulation.  To the extent that the communication alleges that we have unlawfully denied retroactive benefits, section 5110(g) of title 38, United States Code, is clear that the effective date of any award of benefits pursuant to the regulation cannot be earlier than the date that we issued it."

VA: C-123 Veterans' Service Connection – NOW!

The C-123 Veterans association is joined by other service organizations in calling on Secretary McDonald to recognize our aircrew and maintainers' Agent Orange presumptive service connection. 

It has been long enough.

Proposal to Dissolve C-123 Veterans Association

The Last Bag Drag.
Time to file the voucher and head home.
Mission complete.

If things go through this week as VA has indicated, our reason for existence draws to a close. We told VA we'd been exposed to Agent Orange, and at long last the VA will begin treating our Agent Orange illnesses and providing the full range of care and benefits due us.

So there is nothing remaining that is unique to us. We've argued our case and won, and now the proposal for all to consider is simply dissolving our casual association, and inviting all members to affiliate with the Vietnam Veterans of America.

VVA is organized to meet our needs. Their service officers understand the VA and Agent Orange issues, and we share with VVA members the full range of veterans concerns. In particular, we have an abiding concern for veterans of all toxic exposures, something the VVA will fight for on our behalf and with our small number of airmen added to their ranks.

We'd thought of an aviation-focused chapter, but VVA's structure makes that impractical. Because we're spread all across the nation we can't enjoy the fellowship of other veterans unless allied with VVA and other service organizations such as VFW, DAV and the Legion.

Because of some continuing issues such as FOIA suits and Yale's representation of us on important cases, we will continue as an entity until these things are resolved. I'll also continue to blog as the mood strikes me...I've come to enjoy this as something of a focused journal

A note: of all the service organizations, while a couple like PVA and DAV mentioned us occasionally in their publications, our cause was championed by the VVA and the American Legion.

To both, we say "thank you, brothers."

National Veterans Groups Challenge VA on C-123 Agent Orange Claims Obstruction

On June 27, using the letter below, all six major veterans organizations firmly challenged the Veterans Administration (VA) for inappropriate use of a particular consulting firm. The firm represented the VA in a June 16 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee meeting evaluating C-123 Agent Orange exposure issues. Veterans leaders dispute the consultant's findings, and insist the firm was cherry-picked for its known opposition to veterans' exposure claims, which in this case had been expressed by the firm for years. 

Veterans and Agent Orange experts reviewing the statements and documents submitted by the consultant to the IOM on behalf of the VA complain to the Secretary that the input was unscientific and failed to meet VA's published standards for quality, utility, integrity and objectivity of information released by the Department.

This group letter follows publication in the Sunday Boston Globe of a front page feature article about a C-123 veteran, Dick Matte had a heart transplant, lost his left leg in February and is increasingly ill but his Agent Orange exposure claims were denied, just as with all of other C-123 vets. 

Other news impacting the issue was the C-123 Veterans Association release of a "Casualty List" of ten deceased veterans who flew or maintained these former Agent Orange spray transports. All died after being refused VA care...turned away by VA, the veterans had to do their best seeking medical care elsewhere. 

That's not right! In the many ways VA is wrong in preventing exposed veterans' access to VA facilities , we leave it to the department's Inspector General or the Secretary himself to address.

======================================================= 

June 27, 2014

The Honorable Sloan Gibson

Acting Secretary

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Secretary,

We write to ask that you take immediate steps to reverse the action of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Office of Public Health section, in retaining a certain outside consultant firm regarding Agent Orange.

Having this particular consultant represent VA at the June 16 public meeting of the National Academies of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Exposure of C-123 crews to Agent Orange is nothing short of reprehensible. As you move forward in your efforts to reestablish the trust of veterans in VA (including the strong united support of the nation’s veterans service organizations), we caution that employing that particular consulting firm will be seen as an inappropriate, anti-veteran choice.

This consulting firm’s decades-long association with the VA and its consistency of obsolete views over the past 40 years, despite all current scientific knowledge, is not what the public expects, as VA meets its own mandate for release of information:

“VA will ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information it disseminates to the public.” (http://www.rms.oit.va.gov/information_quality.asp#Release)

We ask that you review this firm’s unique contractual involvement with the VA and make appropriate decisions.

We are alarmed that VA had already assumed a position and that the contractor directly informed the IOM of the VA’s position. He made clear he was offering his input as a scientist to insure the integrity of the scientific record. In fact, as his own support documents submitted to the committee make clear, VA contracted with his firm to produce, and then release to the IOM, his reports, some of which targeted veterans’ claims directly.

Whether from Young or from other personnel in the Office of Public Health (OPH), the use of the term “bioavailability” is now being used to deny claims. This is a term in the development of pharmaceuticals that is used to refer to how much and how fast the active ingredients reach the specific part of the body that one is trying to affect. Of course, this has to be measured in a controlled setting. Air missions almost forty years ago do not lend themselves to such measurement. So this is nothing but junk science. If this were the standard used at the Love Canal, NY, or Times Beach, MO, toxic disasters, then one would judge that all those who died were not even sick, as “bioavailability” could not be measured or proven. This is patent nonsense.

This contractor’s reports, regardless of any possible partially factual accuracy they may convey, do not meet the appropriate standards of VA nor of any other federal, science-focused agency. The contractor’s reports yielded to the VHA/VBA agenda, serving VA rather than science and veterans. These reports could never survive peer review, yet VA selected this person to pressure the IOM into preventing the veterans’ exposure claims.

For four decades, this contractor has tried to obfuscate or hide the truth about the deleterious impact of Agent Orange. In fact, he has been paid to hide the truths regarding the negative health effects of Agent Orange and other phenoxy herbicides and organic phosphates used in Vietnam and elsewhere. 

In possible violation of ethics, VA’s contractor failed to disclose his 2009 recommendation to destroy the stored, toxic C-123’s, which was acted on in 2010. He had advised the Air Force, in numerous memoranda, that unless the planes were destroyed, veterans might apply for presumptive service connection because of their exposures. He then congratulated the Air Force for carrying out the destruction in a manner “below the radar.” His opposition to C-123 veterans is anything but “below the radar.” 

The contractor made numerous apparent misrepresentations during his June 16 presentation before the IOM, the most egregious of which was his use of photos of a reconditioned C-123, taken from a civilian owner’s website showing what the plane looks like today after the owner had rebuilt it. The consultant used these photos in an attempt to illustrate the 1972 results of Tail #664 and the other C-123s, claiming them to have been thoroughly refurbished after Vietnam. Actually, the photos he “borrowed” show modern cockpit modifications. The cargo deck photo shows equipment used today by the civilian owner for attending airshows. Certainly, these were not photos of modifications performed in 1972, as his report detailed. Of particular concern is the contractor’s use of the borrowed photos to challenge other scientists’ work, and we are troubled by such apparent deceptions aimed at these veterans.

While we would always rather focus on policies than personnel, in the case of this contractor, personnel is policy. On behalf of our nation’s veterans, we have an obligation to share with you the contractor’s record of positions, quite contrary to VA’s stated position, regarding the deleterious effects of one of the most toxic chemicals ever produced. The consultant’s record regarding Agent Orange is antithetical to good science on toxic exposures. Of grave concern are both his employment and the VA’s use of his “expertise” to construct obstacles to the delivery of care to veterans suffering from the very real toxic wounds afflicting our members and their families.

We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this contractor and other major problems of vital interest to our members.

Sincerely,

PETER S. GAYTAN

Executive Director

The American Legion

STEWART M. HICKEY

National Executive Director

AMVETS (American Veterans)

GARRY J. AUGUSTINE

Executive Director

Washington Headquarters

DAV (Disabled American Veterans)

Homer S. Townsend, Jr.        

Executive Director

Paralyzed Veterans of America                                 

ROBERT E. WALLACE

Executive Director VFW

Washington Office

RICHARD F. WEIDMAN

Executive Director,

Policy & Government Affairs

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)