Institute of Medicine C-123 Agent Orange Committee Audio

The first panel consisted of Wes Carter, representing the C-123 veterans, and Dr. Al Young, discussing the Department of Veterans Affairs. We each had a five minute intro followed by questions from the committee for about an hour. Two other panels followed, with representatives from Sandia Labs, UC Berkeley, Columbia University, Rutgers University and others.

After lunch the committee arranged five-minute open mike sessions. The most interesting and passionate was from Dr. Peter Kahn of Rutgers University, who not only has spent his life as a scientist but was also leader of New Jersey's Agent Orange Commission for years.

To put it mildly, Dr. Kahn took on the VA (not the IOM) for its intransigence. In the recording, his presentation begins at 3:17:00 and runs about four minutes. Also heard is the C-123 representative, Dr. Loren Erickson who is the new director of Pre 9/11 Post-Deployment Health in the VA's Public Health Section, and finally Mr. Rick Weidman, Legislative Director of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

A couple points. As expert listeners will note, VA makes Agent Orange sound innocent...as innocent as kool-aid in the jungles of Guyana as Rev. Jim Jones hands you a cup and says, "Drink this..good for you!" VA has been a defender for VA/Dow/Monsanto for decades and nothing changes. VA has paid $600,000 for a series of reports, some of which were shared with the IOM.

VA materials also wrongly emphasized the refurbishment of the C-123s before use by the Reserve. VA was wrong in submitting photos of C-123 #664 (Ponderous Polly) of the flight deck and the cargo deck, saying and writing that they were taken as the aircraft came out of Dothan AL on return from Vietnam in 1972. Actually, the photos seemed clipped from the Air Heritage Museum's web page and were taken in recent years, not back in 1972.

At least one committee member challenged VA emphasis on the refurbishment of the C-123s, asking if they'd been so thoroughly redone, why did Patches still test so toxic in 1994. I hope the committee understands that the dioxin was more intense in 1972 when we got the first C-123s than when tested decades later. In one of the VA reports the Department stressed the deterioration of dioxin on the Boneyard aircraft by 2010 but in the committee switched and said there would be very little, if any, deterioration and that the 2009 test results should be interpreted to equal what would have been the case in 1972.

Clearly, all the VA cares about is blocking claims. Any way they can!

All the VA's documents are available to review here.
Our responses to VA documents thru June 16 to the IOM are available to review here.
All the materials submitted at the last minute or after the 16th are available here.
We did a super-rush job clipping a video together, seen here.

The first voice at 00:00;00 is the committee chair, Professor Henrick of Harvard. The second is Wes Carter, then Dr. Al Young, followed by questions from the committee, then another panel, etc.

We tried hard, just as we've done for three hard years (so far.) Now the committee meets over the next couple months to complete their report and submit it for review of the National Academies of Science. Expect it to be several hundred pages. It then should be on the Secretary's desk by the end of September and we'll keep pushing for a prompt decision. Any of our pilots or flight engineers would have done better, but I feel I did okay (for an AME.)

Other efforts continue. We're now going to have time to help individual members get their claims and appeals in with supporting information. We have friends in Congress who are pushing VA and its staffers HARD on their illogical position. We have friends in science, and in government, doing the same on our behalf.

What should you be doing?
1. Get your request in to VA for an Agent Orange Registry exam
2. Watch your PSAs
3. Get your claims in for Agent Orange-associated illnesses...benefits date from the application, not when VA approves!
3. Find other C-123 veterans. We have done a miserable job connecting with folks from Pittsburgh and Richenbacker...they are in the same situation as us but need to get in touch with us – I can't believe they simply aren't interested. Their illnesses must be similar to ours, and they even had one or two maintenance folks win their Agent Orange claims on appeal.
4. Have a great summer and take care of yourselves!

ATSDR CONFIRMS Dermal Route for C-123 Dioxin Exposure

VA has "explained" to the veterans' community that C-123 flyers were not exposed, and primarily

because, as they put it, "TCDD does not readily cross human skin." This was their summation of Weber's quite dated 1991 article.

So, quoting a 23 year old publication and ignoring more current juried articles with contrary findings firmly supporting C-123 veterans' claims, VA's Post Deployment Health unit concluded C-123 veterans were not exposed. Because the dermal barrier is near-perfect, they told us. Anything to block disability claims.

They're wrong. VA VHA issued a blatant twist of facts. Along with similar conclusions in TG312, here what the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry said, confirming our OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE resulted in dermal absorption – BIOAVAILABILITY! 

"[T]he ability of the skin to absorb dioxins (bioavailability)is slow except during occupational exposures." (p.5)

Also, the Japanese Environmental Agency:

 "Oral Intake and Absorption: Dioxins are absorbed through the gastro-intestinal tract, skin, and lungs. The degree of absorption varies with the congener, the route of absorption,and the medium."

Thus, even with VA's twisted redefinition of exposure (exposure = contamination field + bioavailability) we have federal agency support for both our exposure and the bioavailability.

There's more. The NIH/National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences also reported that dermal contact with TCDD results in absorption...dermal exposure:

Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1991 Feb;107(2):302-10.

Absorption of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) after low dose dermal exposure.

Banks YB1, Birnbaum LS.

Author information

Abstract

Human dermal exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) occurs through contact with soil and paper products

C-123 Veterans Present at Society of Toxicology Conference, Phoenix

We're going to set the record straight. 
In 2012, the VA's Post Development Health unit presented a misleading poster at the Society of Toxicology conference, titled "Agent Orange, 50 Years History." In this poster they inserted a unique redefinition of "exposure" which added a requirement of bioavailability to complete...no bioavailability equals no exposure, according to the VA, and thus our denied disability claims!

This is unscientific and unique to the VA...no other agency or professional organization has such an unusual definition, and it has been called both "unscientific" and "ludicrous" by other experts.

Why did VA do this? By redefining exposure, VA attempts to deny the on-board exposures of C-123 veterans. Decades after our exposures, bioavailability is virtually impossible to prove and the VA even prohibits such testing. This linguistic maneuver was solely to prevent C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims, and it has been used since then with VA insisting no exposure was possible aboard the aircraft.

We're challenging VA on this, presenting our poster addressing VA science and ethics, and we are sponsored by Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (Click for coverage from The Arizona Republic, published 5 Apr 2014)

Open Letter to VA About "Blanket Claim Denials"

Subject: VA Assistant General Counsel Assures C-123 Veterans "No Blanket Denials" 

We C-123 veterans appreciate VA Associate General Counsel Mr. Richard Hipolet's assurances that the Department of Veterans Affairs has no blanket policy prohibiting C-123 veterans' exposure claims. I'm grateful that he wrote to explain VA's perspective.

He reminds us that the late LtCol Paul Bailey's claim was approved, but does not note that this was on appeal after denial months earlier using the standard boilerplate:

"VA regulations do not allow us to concede exposure to herbicides for Veteran's who claim they were exposed to herbicides after the Vietnam war while flying in aircraft used to spray the se s chemicals "
Other statements provided VAROs to deny claims are generally the remark that " Please tell the Veteran 'We are unable to verify or document that aircrew members were exposed..."

In any case, no C-123 veterans' claims have been approved short of reconsideration by a review officer or BVA. There, with more careful reading of the law and Federal Register of 31 Aug 2010 and 8 May 2001, and a somewhat more veteran-friendly and non-adversarial forum, claims are approved. Years later, after improper denials.

On 28 Feb 2013, in his office meeting between himself, his staff, myself and Major Marlene Wentworth NC USAF, the Director of Compensation and Pension Services (C&P) explained that the Deputy Consultant of VHA's Post Deployment Health had already concluded no C-123 veterans were exposed to TCDD. I was told no amount of proof from whatever source would permit C-123 veterans' claims to rise to the level of "as likely to as not" because of her determination. (A similar statement was made to Major T. Redd, an Army officer, following a meeting of C-123 representatives, Senator Burr's staff, and VHA representatives.)

Soon after our 28 Feb 2013 meeting with Compensation and Pension, the Deputy Consultant graciously explained to me by telephone that her decision was reached because no C-123 veterans could ever establish bioavailability. Helping me better understand bioavailability, she explained that with the bioavailability requirement none of the Vietnam War veterans were exposed either (except perhaps some Ranch Hand flyers) but they are covered by "boots on the ground" laws.

Bioavailability does not exist in the law, as Mr. Hiplot explains, but he does offer us the opportunity to appeal any of our claims denied by VA's new requirement for it. I have checked a wide variety of toxicological references and do not find exposure defined as has the VA, "exposure = contamination field + bioavailability."

Adding bioavailability was an effective way for VHA to reintroduce medical nexus, otherwise proscribed, and upon which for VBA to deny claims. It does not seem, however, to be scientifically accepted, and is unique to the VA...and within VA, to Post Deployment Health.

I've asked many experts, and most offered responses similar to that of the Director, NIEHS:
"In all my years as a toxicologist, I have never heard bioavailability as part of the exposure field. Exposure is contact between a chemical (of any type) and the skin." (Dr. Linda Birnbaum)

C&P earlier explained to me that Dr. Birnbaum's opinion is not acceptable, nor those of Dr. Stellman, Dr. Berman, Dr. Garzotto, Dr. Sheers, Dr. James, Dr. Dwernychuk, Dr. Portier, Dr. Sinks, Dr. Schecter, Dr. Miller, and others. He explains that only physicians (but somehow, not the civil or VA physicians whose opinions were overlooked) are qualified to comment on medical nexus...of course, the scientists were commenting on exposure, and not medical nexus.

C&P might note VA's respect for the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. This last biennial report had only two physician members...all the rest were scientists. Scientists, experts to whom VA turns by law, whom C&P would disqualify for commenting on Agent Orange.

With varieties of sample denial language provided to VAROs, with regulations being cited which prohibit conceding our exposure, with the very word "exposure" redefined to exclude our qualification, with TCDD claims denied with assertions that TCDD isn't harmful, with assurances given us by both Compensation and Pension and by Post Deployment Health that no amount of supporting evidence would permit a successful claim, perhaps "blanket policy" against us could be the wrong words, but any independent viewer would likely reach that conclusion. We have.

Last week I visited with a VA claims specialist, asking about what "regulations" might be the ones mentioned in the claims denials. She pointed to the claim itself, the sentence saying "regulations do not permit," and she insisted that was the regulation. The denied claim, with no other substantiation, was her regulation. She explained that the Federal Register, other federal agency findings, nothing else matters...that was the regulation. She would look no further.

Today I spoke with Master Sergeant Richard Matte, hospitalized at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. He lost his right leg last week to infections. Sergeant Matte earlier underwent a heart transplant, and his health is precarious. Sergeant Matte's claims for service connection for herbicide exposure have been denied.

Sergeant Matte evidences a variety of Agent Orange illnesses as did LtCol Bailey. Sergeant Matte flew the same airplanes on the same days from the same bases performing the same missions eating the same food sleeping in the same facilities with the same duties as LtCol Paul Bailey...whose claim for Agent Orange illnesses was approved. I know the details...I was Sergeant Matte's flight instructor and flight examiner in the C-123K.

We've already watched our first sergeant, Master Sergeant George Gadbois, die in pain with soft tissue sarcoma. Said farewell to General Mike and Doc Jones with prostate cancer, and Lou Patcowitz with ALS, and many others with cancers and heart disease.

Agent Orange exposures aboard Patches and the other toxic C-1123s caused so many leave us, far too early. Sergeant Gadbois and the other men's VA claims were all denied. Yet they, too, flew the same missions, the same days, the same airplanes as did LtCol Bailey.

I was the flight instructor and flight examiner for LtCol Bailey and Sergeant Gadbois. I went to both men's funerals. We've had too many funerals.

Would somebody from VA kindly look into Sergeant Matte's situation...somebody who has read the law regarding herbicide exposures and who is uncomfortable with VA's unique redefinition of "exposure" done by
Post Deployment Health
just to prevent TCDD exposure claims?

Respectfully,

   Wes Carter, Chair
   The C-123 Veterans Association

VA Claims Agent Orange “Harmless" – Challenged by Other Federal Agencies

– Claim Denied! "No conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."
(Director VA Compensation Services, personally ordering C-123 vet's claim denial)
– "TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins, and is classified as a human carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency."
(VA Public Health Bulletin )

C-123 "Provider" flown by us 1972-1982

The VA statements are in obvious contrast with each other, yet the VA permits veterans’ claims to be denied by pretending Agent Orange is harmless as per the first statement...a statement which is unscientific, and which flies in the face of VA’s own Agent Orange research.

In September 2012 VA’s Compensation and Pension Service denied C-123 veterans’ Agent Orange exposure claims. Reaching for whatever could be typed on the denial, no matter whether it be legal or scientific, VA leadership opted to deny the claims by pretending TCDD (dioxin, the toxin in Agent Orange) is harmless.

It seems ridiculous...and it is! However, it satisfies the VA’s desire to prevent C-123 veterans’ claims. They might as well have typed that TCDD is beneficial, good for hair restoration, good for food preservation, and  controls earthquakes or whatever else might come to mind. The claims had to be rejected...so VA pretended that TCDD is harmless. 

Science and Medicine, of course, have found otherwise. In particular, the US Government has found otherwise, and even the VA in various Internet pages agrees that TCDD is a human carcinogen, and dangerous to health. But somehow not in the case of C-123 exposures, reads C&P’s tome.

In this, a policy-driven claim denial, VA’s excuse stands challenged by the rest of the United States Government. The agencies with both the statutory responsibility to determine the toxicity of environmental hazards and the scientific expertise to do so, all challenge the VA.

The two agencies in the van of the challenge are the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Institute of Health/National Toxicology Program.

The director of the ATSDR is Rear Admiral (MD) R. Ikeda, who confirmed earlier findings by ATSDR’s director and deputy director which determined C-123 aircraft were contaminated with TCDD and the veterans were exposed. In fact, ATSDR determined these veterans had a 180-times increase in cancer risk because of their service aboard the transports.

The director of the NIH/National Toxicology Program (NIP) is Dr. Linda Birnbaum. On behalf of the NIP, Dr. Birnbaum concluded C-123 veterans were exposed. She stated, “Exposure is assumed based on wipe-tests demonstrating high dioxin concentrations in the C-123K’s. While contact with the aircraft results in exposure to dioxins, the magnitude of these exposures is uncertain.”

Thus, challenging the VA are the ATSDR and the NTP. As regards the NTP, it is important to note that it is a consortium of many government agencies speaking with one voice on toxicological issues. Represented are virtually every concerned US government agency, including DOD, NIH, CDC,  FDA, EPA,  OSHA, National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In her determination that C-123 veterans were exposed, Dr. Birnbaum of the National Toxicology Program represented the many agencies forming the NTP, and her conclusion that C-123 veterans were exposed to TCDD stands in stark contrast to the policy-driven VA refusal to treat C-123 veterans’ Agent Orange illnesses, with VA hiding behind a pretense that TCDD is somehow harmless.

Only VA has stated TCDD is harmless, and VA has made that unfounded statement only in the case of C-123 veterans. VA’s own researchers, including Dr. Mark Garzotto at the Portland VA Medical Center, an oncology urologist treating a C-123 veteran, concluded that Agent Orange-exposed vets suffer twice the rate of highly aggressive prostate cancers. His research was published in May 2013 by the American Cancer Society, and the VA ignored him...without notice at all, his official written opinion that the C-123 veteran was exposed to Agent Orange and that it likely caused the vet’s prostate cancer was simply ignored as the VA denied the vet’s claim. Dr. Garzotto had to be ignored in order to better deny the claim.

TCDD is not harmless as C&P claims. Rather, TCDD is a potent human carcinogen, recognized as such worldwide, and recognized as such by every federal government agency, including the VA. Except...the VA pretends otherwise for the purpose of frustrating C-123 veterans’ claims.
(note: December 2015 – the Department of Justice released VA's admission that their "TCDD is harmless" statement was in error.)

VA Official Rejects Institute of Medicine Agent Orange Report!

The VA's Compensation and Pension Service, part of that agency's Veterans Benefits Administration, rejects input from the Society of Medicine's Institute of Medicine Agent Orange Committee!

In his action of September 25 2012 by which he ordered a C-123 veteran's claim for Agent Orange exposure to be refused, The Director of Compensation and Pension Service, determined that no input from scientists was to be accepted by his department. A reasonable conclusion: VA rejects the IOM report because nearly all its members were scientists! VA does, of course, accept input from its own staff scientists, such as its Director, Post-Deployment Health, Dr. Victoria Davey...a scientist, not a physician.

That C-123 veteran's claim had included numerous findings from toxicologists, epidemiologists and other scientists attesting to the contamination of the C-123 and the veteran's own exposure.

Among the official findings confirming the veteran's exposure were those from Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Health National Toxicology Center and also Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Included was an official finding from Dr. Christopher Portier and Dr. Tom Sinks, Director and Associate Director, respectively, of the CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Included were similar detailed conclusions from leading Agent Orange experts such as Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emereta at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

Seemed impressive, but all were ordered ignored by C&P. Throughout its order forbidding the veteran's claim, C&P rejected scientist after scientist, stating each was "not a medical doctor competent to provide that medical nexus."

Actually, none of the scientists even sought to provide medical nexus, but rather only their qualified professional finding that the veteran had actually been exposed, because exposure itself is the only criteria under the law.

Get it? The scientists were addressing exposure, not medical nexus, so C&P junked all their input because in his view, scientists shouldn't address medical nexus...which they weren't addressing anyway.

Amusing, isn't it? And how very transparent the dedication of Compensation and Pension Service in obstructing valid exposure claims. Amusing also that VA even rejects input from other federal agencies with both the expertise and the statutory authority to decide issues like exposure. It is clear...the only evidence accepted in veterans' claims is that evidence which conforms to the VA's policy objectives of denying Agent Orange exposure.

Ignored throughout the Director, Compensation and Pension's personal rejection of the veteran's claim were the numerous physicians' opinions, perhaps not dealt with because they couldn't be challenged...thus all  were ignored to insure the success of the director's action. In particular, the VA ignored the opinion of its own Portland OR director of urology oncology, Dr. Mark Garzotto, a recognized Agent Orange researcher, who agreed with the veteran's exposure claims.

So how is the conclusion reached that the IOM has been rejected? Because nearly all of the committee members were scientists, and not physicians. In fact, only two of the fifteen Agent Orange experts on the committee were physicians...the others, all scientists whose opinions C&P and the VA have emphatically rejected...at least for purposes of veterans' claims.The IOM fails C&P's physician test!

So..it seems when scientists agree with C&P and the VA, their opinions are somehow acceptable. But when scientists disagree with the Director's personal views, and policy objectives (which are outside the law) of the VA leadership, the scientists' opinions are unacceptable altogether! We note the C-123 Agent Orange research contract the VA has with an agricultural specialist...again, that specialist is not a physician but because he constructs views acceptable to the VA, his opinions are worth purchasing to help obstruct veterans' claims.

So much for the manditory "veteran-friendly" appproach of the Department of Veterans Affairs! Doesn't anyone else see through the VA's "cherry-picking" of input to prevent veterans' claims? The VA is policy-driven to prevent, in particular, C-123 veterans' claims and nothing in two years of our struggle says otherwise!

By the way, VA's Post-Deployment Health Section, which sets VA policy against C-123 claims, is headed by a Dr Victoria Davey, a scientist, not a physician! Her Chief Consultant Post Deployment Health is another scientist, Dr. Michael Peterson. Another example of VA carefully selecting which opinions are acceptable for the purpose of preventing veterans' claims. That gentleman, Dr. Peterson, is the one who responded "We all die" when asked by a veteran if a veteran's claim could be processed before the man died.

Note that we are not saying these VA personnel are not dedicated public servants and well-qualified for their positions–just that VA pretends others, extremely well-qualified and dedicated are not. VA maintains this pretense because the others...Stellman, Berman, Birnbaum, Dwernychuk, Ikeda, Sinks, Portier, Garzatta, Schecter, Miller, etc...are physicians and scientists who disagree with VA policy-driven decisions, and all have concluded the C-123 veterans were indeed exposed!

Perhaps VA should read the CVs of those with whom it disagrees!

Office of Secretary of Defense Linked to C-123 Agent Orange Evidence Destruction

Air Force documents uncovered recently via the Freedom of Information Act link the Office of Secretary of Defense to the actions by Air Force Material Command to destroy toxic C-123 transport aircraft, specifically to prevent veterans from learning of their exposure to Agent Orange. Revealed

were procedures untaken to bar Agent Orange benefits from already exposed aircrews and maintenance veterans, procedures involving press manipulation and destruction of the evidence which would support claims for Agent Orange benefits by over 1560 men and women.

C-123 transports, used earlier in Vietnam for spraying Agent Orange, remained contaminated with deadly dioxin for the decade the planes remained in service after the war, until they became obsolete and were retired in 1982. Although toxicologists first established the hazardous condition in 1979 the Air Force opted not to spend the necessary money (estimated at over $40,000 per aircraft) to properly decontaminate the fleet of C-123s and instead ordered base maintenance workers to wipe interior surfaces (those that could be accessed) with Dawn detergent and to cover the intense stench which sickened aircrews with area deodorants. Using paint scrapers and even dental picks, maintenance personnel scraped Agent Orange residue where it had caked up during Vietnam, but huge amounts remained inaccessible in the wings, under the cargo deck, and in portions of the landing gear wells. Agent Orange had even soaked into the paint, wood, leather, fabrics, ceramics, adhesives and other surfaces inside the C-123, little of which could be removed.

In 1994, twelve years after the fleet was retired to desert surplus storage in Arizona, more tests firmly detailed the toxicity of these medium assault transports in 1994 as the Air Force examined an aircraft ("Patches") being moved into the USAF Museum. Results: "Heavily contaminated on all test surfaces" and "A danger to public health," confirmed toxicologists from the highly-respected
USAF Armstrong Laboratories. At this time, either through oversight or a specific decision, the Air Force opted not to inform the veterans who'd flown these airplanes, veterans who'd previously been assured there was no risk of Agent Orange exposure, that in fact they'd been exposed for a full decade.

A more deliberate act by the Air Force to hide information from veterans about their exposure to Agent Orange was undertaken in 1996 by the USAF Office of Environmental Law. JAG attorney Major Ursula Moul directed that all information about C-123 contamination be "kept in official channels only," a deception costing the exposed veterans nearly two decades of awareness of their exposures. Two decades during which at least minor health precautions could have been observed, such as monitoring PSA numbers or limiting dietary fat intake.

After decades in storage the surplus fleet of C-123 transports needed to be eliminated as they couldn't be sold, parted out, or even buried as toxic waste. Seeking input, in 2009 the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) offered the Air Force the name of Dr. Al Young. Young is also a retired Air Force colonel, and his career has focused on use of Agent Orange from the earliest days of its use in Vietnam.

Young then guided the AF to the decision to destroy the old airplanes and in at least three memos to three different officials, introduced the point that if veterans learned of the airplane contamination, the old aircrews and maintenance folks would approach the VA for what Dr. Young called "presumptive compensation," meaning compensation for exposure illnesses and VA medical care as well. This apparently was something he felt should be prevented, even though the veterans had already been exposed and were presumably eligible for such care. His recommendation to destroy the airplanes to prevent veterans' awareness was repeated up the Air Force chain of command and finally approved by the Air Staff. All remaining C-123s were destroyed as toxic waste in June 2010. Young even helped Air Force Public Affairs craft a press release minimizing references to "Agent  Orange" and such attention-grabbing words - a press release never released but held in the event of media attention. There was none.

He was also mentioned in the letter from VA's Secretary Shinseki to Senator Richard Burr, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. The Secretary commented on Dr. Young's having volunteered details (even though he was under a $600,000 VA post-Vietnam Agent Orange consulting contract) analyzing the details of the dioxin the test results. C-123 veterans note that VA's Compensation Services has uniformly rejected expert independent evidence from toxicologists and other scientists, with the claim that such professionals, even though from an allied health profession, are unqualified to comment on medical nexus or exposures. Included in the rejected list are the Director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Rear Admiral Robin Ikeda MD, as well as the Director National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology Center, and physicians from the US Public Health Service. All unqualified because their degrees are not in medicine (Compensation Service ignored those experts who were physicians, illogically grouping them instead in the unacceptable non-physician pile).

Is the VA cherry-picking their experts, accepting only those supporting the VA against C-123 veterans? Is the VA cherry-picking experts because, as Veterans Health Administration puts it, she "cannot permit" C-123 veterans' claims?

Veterans invite our fellow citizens to consider the CVs of experts who've weighed in on this issue. Google them...see who has the expertise and reputation to speak out on this subject.

For Veterans' Exposure: Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Dr. Christopher Portier, Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Dr. Aubrey Miller, Dr. Arnold Schecter, Dr. Fred Berman, Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk, Rear Admiral Robin Ikeda MD (US Public Health Service), Dr. Tom Sinks, Dr. Mark Garzotto, others from universities and federal agencies identified to the VA as members of the Concerned Scientists and Physicians. Please note all opinions were offered without compensation.

Newest YouTube Video: C-123 Veterans Challenge VA's "Scientific Review of C-123" Article

Posted yesterday: C-123 Veterans Challenge VA's "Scientific Review of C-123 Agent Orange" article.

The VA began poisoning the air immediately after the first C-123 Agent Orange exposure concerns were raised by veterans. Their basic response was posted on the Internet entitled "Scientific Review of Agent Orange in C-123 Aircraft." Our is a long 22-minute video, because there was much to cover, or should we say, uncover, regarding this act of deception on the part of VA.

As science, this article from VA is useless. It reflects a 100% one-sided argument, framed solely to prevent any possibility of our veterans qualifying for Agent Orange exposure protection. VA deliberately ignored everything in science which would have confirmed our possible exposure, and cherry-picked only materials to deny us. Amazing, but they even cited Dr. Linda Birnbaum of the NIH/NEIHS as author of an article "proving" we weren't exposed, yet Dr. Birnbaum has written that C-123 veterans WERE exposed to dioxin.

VA scientists writing this certainly won't be proud to list it in their CV of publications - no, it isn't science, but rather policy, and it doesn't deserve to be called science! As for VA's cherry-picking of references, we must remember what VA's Compensation Services told us on 28 February 2013 - that no amount of evidence proving C-123 veterans' exposure will be considered because VA's Post Deployment Health has already ruled that no C-123 veteran was ever exposed.

I guess we'll have to keep arguing that point with them!

Report: Scientists Confirm Veterans C-123 Agent Orange Exposure

There are two foundations for C-123 veterans’ Agent Orange claims (legal and scientific) and we’re going to look into the scientific basis. But first the legal: under the 1991 Agent Orange Act, and the Federal Register of 8 May 2001, all veterans exposed to military herbicides will be treated the same as are Vietnam veterans.

The Basis for C-123 Agent Orange Veterans Claims 

The C-123 aircraft were contaminated with Agent Orange following their Ranch Hand spraying operations during Vietnam, and aircrews, maintenance and aerial port personnel after the war were exposed while flying and maintaining the toxic airplanes between 1972-1982. Agent Orange, especially in the earlier years of the Vietnam War, was contaminated with dioxin, also known as TCDD. TCDD is a known carcinogen, and considered the most toxic of the toxins. Not a good thing in our airplanes!

Exposure to a toxin such as TCDD is via inhalation, ingestion or dermal routes. C-123 veterans experienced all three routes, but base claims on dermal exposure and inhalation. Generally, dioxin exposure is most readily via ingestion, then inhalation, then dermal routes.

In 1979 Air Force testing first confirmed the presence of “military herbicides” on the C-123, although no testing was completed for dioxin. The first comprehensive scientific testing of that same C-123 was fifteen years later in 1994 at the Air Force Museum, where the warplane was found to be “heavily contaminated” and “a danger to public health” by the Air Force toxicologists Drs Ron Porter and Wade Weisman. Using standard hexane wipes, they detected high levels of dioxin on all test surfaces, and consequently mandated HAZMAT protection for museum personnel working around that airplane until decontamination, which required three attempts, was decontaminated.

The 1994 Porter/Weisman data was joined by test results on airplanes stored at the Air Force boneyard in Arizona, where tests were completed between 1999 and 2009. These tests continued to show the toxicity of the warplanes, although degrading over time since the last Agent Orange spray missions completed in 1971.  Air samples were generally acceptable and wipes continued to report dioxin contamination.

Unable to justify decontamination of the aged airplanes and forced to address their disposal in some manner, the Air Force ordered all C-123s destroyed as toxic waste in 2010. At that point no further testing was possible, although two former spray aircraft used as museum displays may someday be examined (Pima Air Museum, AZ and the AF Museum at Warner-Robins AFB, GA). 

Thus, only the testing data already existent is available to analysis. When the veterans learned of the C-123 contamination via the Freedom of Information Act results in 2011, their inquiries to the Department of Veterans Affairs were immediately, and apparently without any even-handed analysis, rebuffed with VA insistence that the airplanes could not have exposed the veterans.

The veterans, convinced by the 1994 Air Force test results, turned to recognized experts in universities and government agencies to find confirmation of their exposure.

The first of these was Dr.Fred Berman of Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Program. Berman, himself a licensed pilot, examined the results of Porter/Weisman and concluded veterans were exposed. Addressing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. Berman wrote:

“It is my professional opinion that…aircrew veterans who flew these aircraft in the same time period)were exposed to harmful levels of dioxin in the course of aircrew duties. I opine that exposure was intense, and long-term, and that cited illnesses are as likely as not to be associated with the aircraft's dioxin contamination.”

Berman had earlier participated in a teleconference between scientists, VA staff and veterans on the issue of C-123 exposure, and in his independent expert opinion dismissed the VA’s contention that the “dried dioxin” on the aircraft could not have exposed the aircrew. In particular, he noted that there was no support in scientific literature for precluding exposure to dry, or surface dioxin, and that two of the authors cited by the VA had themselves stated their articles did not address aircrew exposure and were not relevant to that issue. 

Dr. Jeanne Stellman was also consulted by the C-123 veterans, and she, too, provided an in-depth analysis of their exposure. Dr. Stellman is world-famous in dioxin issues, a decades-long focus of her professional career in public health. Her conclusion paralleled that of Dr. Berman. She confirmed their exposure in her message to the veterans:

“There is every likelihood that you would have been exposed to both airborne herbicides and their contaminants, as well as come into contact with surfaces contaminated by these toxic substances.” “In my opinion, it is highly likely that you and other crewmembers were exposed to the herbicides and to their highly toxic contaminant,2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (dioxin, for short), although it is not possible to estimate the precise levels of exposure because of the failure of the Air Force to carry out proper assessments of contamination levels prior to assigning the contaminated aircraft to post-Vietnam military operations.”

Dr. Stellman also concluded C-123 veterans were exposed more than ground soldiers were in Vietnam, and somewhat less than aircrews in the wartime Agent Orange spray operations. She strongly and directly criticized the VA’s “dry dioxin transfer” position (which VA used to argue against the veterans’ exposure) by writing, “These statements, to be blunt, are technically flawed and show insufficient understanding of surface contamination. Concerned about the poor science procedures followed by the VA, and acting on behalf of fifteen of her physician and scientific colleagues, Dr. Stellman wrote the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs to challenge the government’s position on C-123 veterans.

Further support for the veterans’ exposure claims was offered by the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Deputy Director Dr. Tom Sinks, whose opinion was later joined by that of the ATSDR Dr. Christopher Portier, confirmed the C-123 exposures. While lamenting the paucity of available testing data, Dr. Sinks, and later Dr. Portier, wrote:

“I believe that aircrew operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD.”Considering the dioxin concentration, they wrote “This average value exceeds the Army (Technical Guide 312) screening level by182 times and is equivalent to a 200-fold greater cancer risk than the screening value.”

Further agreement with the veterans’ claims to have been exposed were provided by Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk, retired chief scientist of the Hatfield Group, the leading engineering and environmental group specializing in Agent Orange. Dr. Dwernychuk concurred with the findings of Berman and Stellman, and the ATSDR, and using the VA’s preferred language reported the group of C-123 veterans “is more likely than not to have been exposed.” Dwernychuk in addition, particularly challenged the statement used by the VA's director of Compensation and Pension in denying a veterans’ exposure claim, where the government stated “there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes adverse health effects”. “This statement I find blatantly disingenuous” wrote Dr. Dwernychuk.

Among the physicians examining the C-123 exposure issue are Dr. Arnold Schecter, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Medical School. Dr. Schecter is perhaps America’s leading physician specializing in Agent Orange, and offered his opinion:

“There is no doubt in my mind, as a physician who has studied Agent Orange and dioxin in Vietnam and in the USA since 1981 that you have had, as a result of your work in the military, to above background exposure to TCDD from work in fixed wing aircraft previously used for Agent Orange spraying missions.” “In my professional opinion you are at increased risk for illness from the dioxin in Agent Orange because of your exposure to it from your military service.”

The US Public Health Service also reviewed the C-123 Agent Orange issue, and Dr. Aubrey Miller’s expert finding on behalf of that agency was:

“Regarding the association between dermal exposure and effects that seems to have been a matter of some dispute, it is my opinion that the scientific evidence is clear. Dermal exposures, including exposures to contaminated equipment or secondary exposures through contaminated clothing, tools, vehicles, etc. could result in absorption that would be problematic.”

Another expert offering her careful review of the exposure issue is Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology Program. Her opinion:

“According to the narrative, exposure is assumed based on wipe-tests demonstrating high dioxin concentrations in the C-123K's. While contact with the aircraft results in exposure to dioxins, the magnitude of these exposures is uncertain.”

Each of these authorities has volunteered their independent expert opinions and findings, while the VA position against veterans’ exposure was written by staffers assigned to do so as part of their jobs. 

Observers might compare the CVs of the VA staff to those of the independent experts...those writing for the VA are hard to even find, if at all, in Google Scholar while the independent experts, like Shecter, Birnbaum and Stellman, total hundreds of pages of CV references and thousands of pages of scholarly contributions to this field. Isn't it clear...people opposed by the senior scholars of their profession! Imagine a court setting with opposing "experts" and the obvious differences between them...no court would fail to side with the veterans, and indeed, no BVA will fail to award service connection for a C-123 veteran but we simply don't have the years waiting for BVA justice!

Supporting the C-123 veterans’ claim to have been exposed aboard the toxic C-123 fleet are federal agencies such as the EPA, NIH and CDC, and prestigious universities and independent experts. The scientists named here have stressed to the veterans that they’re not advocates for one view or another, but instead neutral observers whose opinions are based on the science involved, not the politics. And the veterans note that gives their conclusion about exposure even more weight.

The C-123 veterans ask the VA to yield on its predetermined disqualification of these airman from Agent Orange medical care. Congressmen and senators are asked to stress to the VA our complete qualification under the law for the care we desperately need for our Agent Orange illnesses.

(note: source documents for each issue dealt with are downloadable from www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com)

-- http://youtu.be/JtFQ1svAp