White House again delays decision on new Agent Orange diseases; is decision delayed for "late 2020" election impact?

Comment: To me, this decision, promised since the Obama administration and repeatedly promised by the Trump VA, seems timed to the election. Mulvaney seems to have even raised the bar for coverage. Previously, VA acted when Institute of Medicine studies revealed a statistical impact for Agent Orange on a disease: Mulvaney now demands "compelling evidence" for VA to act. Or...to avoid acting at all? And why wait until the election?

The clear problem is his term compelling = conclusive, convincing, decisive, effective, forceful, persuasive, satisfying, strong." That's a new, much higher standard. Science and medicine will find it almost impossible to establish "compelling" proof. Very few other exposures have "compelling" evidence for diseases. Tobacco, asbestos, radiation, perhaps only exposures like these fall into that category. The original 1991 laws for Agent Orange exposures forced VA to act when IOM showed an increase for the statistical odds of a disease. Mulvaney wants more. Very, very much more.

by Patricia Kime,

The day President Donald Trump signed a funding bill including a provision ordering VA to announce its plans to add four conditions to the list of Agent Orange-linked diseases within 30 days, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the decision wasn’t likely to come until at least “late 2020.”

In a letter to Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, dated Dec. 20 and obtained by Military Times, Wilkie said he would not make a decision until the results of two long-awaited studies are submitted to or published in scientific journals.

In March, VA officials told members of Congress that the decision would be announced within 90 days.

Then Wilkie said he was just awaiting the results of the studies — the Vietnam Era Health Retrospective Observational Study, or VE-HEROES, and the Vietnam Era Mortality Study — expected in 2019.

But the requirement that the results be analyzed, peer-reviewed and in the publication pipeline could add months to the process. VE-HEROES results are currently “being analyzed,” while data from the mortality study is “expected to be available for peer review and publication in late 2020,” Wilkie wrote in the letter.

It’s unclear whether VA plans to comply with the new law that requires it to announce its plans on a decision within the 30-day requirement.

For the 83,000 veterans with one of three conditions under consideration, including bladder cancer, Parkinson’s-like symptoms or hypothyroidism, as well as an unknown number of Vietnam veterans with high blood pressure, the wait continues.

Skillful Independent Medical Opinion re: Agent Orange & USAF Line of Duty

Here's a terrific independent medical opinion (IMO) written to argue that a post-Vietnam War C-123 veteran should be given a USAF line of duty determination (LOD.)
Why the LOD? Because the VA requires itself to recognize military records when considering a veteran's disability claim. DD-214, OJT records, TDY orders...all these are service medical records establishing a veteran's eligibility for benefits. The LOD is almost as pivotal as the DD-214.
My hope is that the Air Force Board of Correction, or the Federal Circuit Court, will investigate this veteran to determine whether an LOD is warranted. If so, my objective will have been met. I want an example for all post-Vietnam C-123 veterans to anchor their exposure disability back around 1980, so that denies Agent Orange-related VA disability claims submitted between then and now can be reconsidered.
Nothing is certain, even if the AFBCMR issues an LOD. But the example of one C-123 vet getting a retroactive LOD can help everyone else!

VBA's Inter-VA Deceptions?

There is a years-long paperwork trail of apparent VBA deceptions trashing C-123 veterans and our Agent Orange claims.  Here's just one example, written in April 2013 to other members of the VBA staff. (Note: six weeks after the gentleman received the JSRRC email confirmation of our exposures.)

The writer, manager of the Compensation & Pension Service Agent Orange Desk (VAVBAWAS/CO/211/AGENTORANGE [Agent Orange Mailbox]) provides some details about VA's policy of denying  C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims. He defends VA's position with generally accurate statements, but the deception arises from what he fails to report and how he characterizes points he makes. He wrote about Senator Burr's (R-NC) letter to SECVA:

 "Burr is supporting Wes Carter, who has obtained statements from several scientist stating that the post-Vietnam C-123 crews were “exposed” to AO TCDD. Carter also has an equivocating letter from ATSDR indicating “exposure” may have occurred but long term health effects are unknown. On the other hand, CS has scientific statements from Dr. Alvin Young and unsolicited statements from two other toxicologists refuting “exposure” and Carter’s supporters. 

Burr is arguing that VBA should consider the evidence to be pro and con and provide the benefit of doubt to these Veterans. Burr has adopted our language of “case-by-case’ determinations and does not want CS to have a definite stance against Carter and the other post-Vietnam crew members. His letter asks how we will implement this case-by-case plan."

The single largest deception above is referencing scientists supporting the veterans' exposure and those who opposed it. After mentioning that several scientists stated C-123 veterans were exposed, he then details arguments from Dr. Alvin Young and unsolicited statements from two other toxicologists refuting "exposure and Carter's (my) supporters. It is disappointing that none of the recipients of this email did anything to correct it or inquire further about us.

To make his point more effective although not more accurate, the writer opted to leave off the fact that Carter's supporters included the CDC, NIH, USPHS, EPA, dozens of scientists and physicians and university researchers. He pointedly did not reference the March 12 2013 confirmation of C-123 exposures issued by the DOD/JSRRC to the writer six weeks earlier.  That DOD evidence was so substantial, and so pivotal to VA's published requirements in VAM21-1MR to confirm Agent Orange exposures, that the writer and VA withheld it from veterans altogether.

At the least, the writer should have stated that VA was faced with significant opposition to its position opposing C-123 veterans' claims. This is especially clear with the January 9n2015 Institute of Medicine report to Secretary McDonald which disputed the VA's position and stated, "with confidence," the C-123 veterans were indeed exposed despite the VA policy of disputing any such claims.

Understandably, the writer wished to persuade and inform his colleagues. There was a complete failure because his colleagues learned not a whit about overwhelming evidence in conflict with VA's position.It is not easy to understand is why he felt it best done by withholding significant facts if in disagreement with VA policy.

Not at all easy to understand is how any action by this writer or his section at Compensation and Pension can be described as non-adversarial, when this memo and others from his desk clearly clearly are policy-driven overrides of any facts supporting veterans' exposure claims.

Memorial Day 2015 for C-123 Veterans and Our Families

Our family honors and mourns Brigadier General John W. Carter, Captain John Carter Jr, Chief Warrant Officer Henry Carter Sr, Lieutenant Colonel Jessie W. Britt, Master Sergeant George Gadbois, Specialist Walter Rogers, Major Cliff Turcotte, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Bailey, Master Sergeant Robert Boyd, Brigadier General Mike Walker, Acting Sergeant John Carne Sr, Major John Carne Jr, Colonel Warner Jones, Airman Maleine Adams, LtCol Pam Cluwe, Colonel Lou Pascovitz, Sergeant First Class Willy Chiquina, Lieutenant Colonel Tim Olmsted, Master Sergeant Mike Lieb, Master Sergeant William Schindler and Senior Master Sergeant Ed Galvin.

 I felt like this little fellow when I was handed my father's flag.