WE USED TO BE SCIENTISTS. THEN, WASHINGTON INVENTED SOME POLITICAL NEWSPEAK TO HELP SCIENCE BEND INTO POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS.

FELLOW VETERANS: THIS IS AS WRONG AS SOMEBODY TRYING TO FORBID FLYERS TO USE "ALTITUDE, HEADING, BEARING, WEIGHT & BALANCE.": MY DEMAND: HANDS OFF THE CDC AND OTHER FEDERAL MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC AGENCIES!

(CNN) Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the very agency tasked with saving and protecting the lives of the most vulnerable, are now under order by the Trump administration to stop using words including "vulnerable" in 2018 budget documents, according to The Washington Post.

In a 90-minute briefing on Thursday, policy analysts at the nation's leading public health institute were presented with the menu of seven banned words, an analyst told the paper. On the list: "diversity," "fetus," "transgender," "vulnerable," "entitlement," "science-based" and "evidence-based."

Alternative word choices reportedly were presented in some cases. For instance, in lieu of "evidence-based" or "science-based," an analyst might say, "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes," the source said. But those working on the Zika virus's effect on developing fetuses may be at a loss for appropriate -- or acceptable -- words.

The reaction in the room was "incredulous," the longtime CDC analyst told the Post. "It was very much, 'Are you serious? Are you kidding?'"

As news of the word ban spreads at the CDC, the analyst expects growing backlash.

close dialog

Receive Fareed Zakaria's Global Analysis

including insights and must-reads of world news

By subscribing you agree to our

privacy policy.

"Our subject matter experts will not lay down quietly," the unnamed source said. "This hasn't trickled down to them yet."

This C-123 Veteran's Agent Orange Essays: Five Years of Honest writing

Honesty and accuracy throughout. Right there is the distinction between VA and us. They mislead, manipulated, prevaricated. VA "Lacked candor."

That is how I characterize our long effort to earn VA benefits. It took 1515 days before VA approved my Agent Orange exposure claim for cancers and heart disease. I was already 100% service-connected disabled from the Gulf War and medically retired, so my Agent Orange illnesses became the “poster-child” C-123 Veterans Association test case. VA rules wouldn’t let me manage anyone else’s claim so I focused on mine and Paul Bailey’s...his claim was purely Agent Orange issues, and we wanted just this little variety in two amazingly identical claims.*

The objective: Work one case through the VA system, do the research, get scientific and government support, resolve problems and make all our eligible aircrews and maintenance folks (or survivors) able to submit VA disability claims for fair consideration. We did not seek “presumptive eligibility,” although that advantageous status was eventually granted by Secretary McDonald on June 18, 2015.

For 1515 days, I wrote. It sometimes felt like both day and night, I wrote. With no budget to do much else, I wrote. The blog alone eventually ran to seven volumes. I wrote and wrote and wrote. When I wasn't writing I did research for the next piece I'd write.

A website, a daily blog. Briefs, letters, proposals, VA 41-2138 statements, PowerPoint presentations, handouts, essays, press releases, YouTube videos, general correspondence. I kept writing. I wrote things like these essays and other papers.

Today is has been 2220 days since starting this campaign and I look back on complete honesty, consistently accurate writing. Nearly everything I wrote is still available to evaluate. I wrote expecting to be challenged; perhaps even in court so I tried very hard for accuracy. I certainly was an assertive advocate and that was wholly proper.

What wasn't at all proper was 1515 days of VA push-back. VA was antagonistic, unfair and not completely accurate in their resistance...sometimes plain deceptive. In the end, though, it didn’t seem to matter how much material I uncovered, nor how smart I was digging out and honestly writing about the truth, the only thing that mattered was VA denying us for four years, dismissing all the facts by insisting VA had an unspecified “overwhelming preponderance of evidence” against us, based on their imaginary “scientific study.”

VA failure in its "duty to assist" veterans claims, particularly with C-123 Agent Orange

Guest article follows: 
My own experience with the VA duty to assist gathering evidence to support veterans' claim was quite painful. For verification of Agent Orange claims the VA turns to the Department of Defense Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for confirmation of exposures outside Vietnam. Despite the fact that JSRRC serves as the VA research authority, for years VA succeeded in blocking JSRRC input vital to confirm our exposures aboard C-123s. Fortunately, in 2013 VA was provided proof which was made more substantial in 2014 by the JSRRC.

FACT: VA would not accept the JSRRC input, even though it is required to per the VA Adjudication Manual M 21 – 1MR.
FACT: JSRRC was willing to submit the confirmation to VA and Mr. Sampsel but what is required to wait for his request which he never issued, even with my requests.

FACT: even though JSRRC confirmation eventually reached the VA, VA failed to act on it in violation of its own regulations, because individuals at VA were determined to, in the words of its consultant Dr. Alvin Young, "hold the line" against our disability claims. This was on their personal prejudice and their office unofficial personal policy of blocking our claims.

When I first learned that the JSRRC did not have all the material it needed about our aircraft, I had it sent to them by the Air Force Office of Historical Records Research, by the CDC, by the US Public Health Service, by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, by medical schools and schools of public health all across the country. I visited the director of the JSRRC, Mr. Dominic Baldini (a Coast Guard veteran) and was impressed by his desire to serve the needs of America's veterans. That is, if VA would allow him to do so.

The JSRRC is in Fort Belvoir Virginia and I wanted to get there so badly I had to take my wheelchair four miles from the bus drop off point to his office where I was warmly received by Mr. Baldini and his staff. And four wheelchair miles back to my bus after that meeting. 

The VA contact for the JSRRC was Mr. James Sampsel who ran the VA Agent Orange desk, and it was his responsibility to liaise between the two agencies. The problem was Mr. Sampsel kept telling the JSRRC he would not accept input about our exposures for a variety of reasons cited in different ways over the years.

When Mr. Sampsel said he would not accept scientist or physician input except from military officers, we had it provided by commissioned officers of the US Public Health Service who are considered by law serving military officers, including Rear Admiral R. Ikeda MD USPHS. Repeatedly, Mr. Sampsel agreed to internal VA authorities that our veterans proof was persuasive (by law that should have settled things in our favor) yet he failed permit permit himself to be moved, contrary to the pro-veteran responsibility he had.

Then Mr. Sampsel wouldn't accept input because he hadn't specifically requested it from the JSRRC. And he wouldn't, for years. Another method Mr. Sampsel used to block JSRRC confirmation of our exposures was to insist only federal government documentation would suffice. This is despite VA Adjudication Manual 21 – 1MR stating JSRRC is responsible for gathering evidence from all the federal government agencies. Regardless, in his zeal to block C-123 veterans' claims, Mr. Sampsel apparently decided the CDC, USPHS, NIEHS and other federal sources would not suffice because they too directly confirmed the veterans exposures and abused his intent to deny VA medical care and compensation.

Further, although JSRRC and VA are to consider any credible source of scientific and medical information regarding a veteran's exposure, Mr. Baldini was forbidden by Mr. Sampsel to submit evidence from dozens of university medical schools and schools of public health as well as the independent experts VA itself had utilized for such studies. Amazingly, Mr. Sampsel's department even refused to accept input from toxicologists and other scientists from CDC and other federal agencies by stating only physician input would be accepted. This was a blatant abuse of rulings from the US Ninth Circuit Court but was also quite amusing because VA itself frequently used PhD experts whereever appropriate including veterans claims.

By 2013 the JSRRC and poor  Mr. Baldini had suffered enough grief for me about this that they simply force-fed confirmation of my exposure to Mr. Baldini by sending him an email. This didn't seem to help much because Mr. Sampsel simply refused to act on it. The issue finally was resolved only by Secretary McDonald and his interim final rule published in June 2015.

But Mr. Sampsel can still claim victory because he personally blocked 2100 C-123 veterans claims for four years and locked us out of VA hospitals and denied us compensation for our injuries and illnesses. His great respect for his friend Dr. Young have much to do with his motivation and his shouting throughout the VA for many years that he had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against our claims – evidence consisting only of the VA webpage saying so, plus his preference for input from Dr. Young rather than the CDC, US Public Health Service and dozens of other federal, state, and scientific authorities supporting our claims. He wrote that EVERY proof of our exposure was his "real problem."

In the end the Institute of medicine study clearly established our exposure injuries but it was only a partial victory against the clear victory Mr. Sampsel enjoyed in keeping us from the VA hospital for four years. Contrary to law, his department was anti-claimant, adversarial, and obstructionist. He succeeded in "holding the line" against our claims as recommended by his favored consultant, Dr. Al Young.

CONCLUSION: VA hurt us through intrinsic and extrinsic ethical failures, none of which remain addressed today.

================================================================
Guest Article
==========================================================================

By Kevin Courtney November 22, 2016 Updated: November 22, 2016 10:06pm

The Navy’s Blue Angels performed jaw-dropping maneuvers and inspired our next generation’s service members during San Francisco’s Fleet Week last month. Unfortunately, those future sailors and Marines might end up like today’s veterans, suffering from a failing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Thanksgiving is a great opportunity to reflect on how we can best serve our veterans and their families.

Veterans’ benefits claims may go undecided for more than a year, an unimaginably difficult year for those who haven’t experienced it. Our newly elected government leaders should address how the VA can better care for our veterans.

Today, the VA has a duty to assist veterans in preparing their claims by getting complete and relevant records from any federal agency. Congress created this “duty to assist” by passing the Veterans Claims Assistance Act in 2000. Under this standard, the VA must “make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant.” But what happens when a reasonable effort falls short of accurate or complete records? Deciding a claim based on inferior records likely requires an appeal, and the veteran will consequently suffer unnecessary financial and emotional stress.

The U.S. Supreme Court believes the VA should be a “pro claimant” and “non-adversarial” department when deciding claims because it is the sole agency responsible for providing federal benefits to veterans and their families. And there are two features built into the VA’s claim process to help veterans: first is the lack of a statute of limitations for bringing disability claims. A statute of limitations is usually the maximum amount of time after an event a veteran can bring his legal claim. The second feature is the VA’s more liberal burden of proof, which should allow it to decide in the veteran’s favor when the evidence supporting his claim is only 50/50. But are VA employees following these standards?

Congress has increased the VA’s budget every year over the past decade, so insufficient funding is not a reason why the VA fails to be “pro claimant.” While VA executives continue to receive performance bonuses, veterans are left waiting for help. It is important for President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of veterans affairs to change the ethos found within the VA, improve its efficiency and ingrain compassion in employees. There are thousands of dedicated, caring VA employees, but some require a reminder that behind every claim is a veteran who honorably served this country. And they need the VA’s help before it’s too late.

Twenty veterans commit suicide every day in our country. If the VA streamlined its system, then some of these veterans might get the timely help they need.

The VA has an obligation to realize its mission: “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise ‘To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan’ by serving and honoring the men and women who are America’s veterans.”

This Thanksgiving holiday, consider the benefits you enjoy thanks to a veteran. Then consider how you want the VA to treat our veterans.

Kevin M. Courtney is a student judge advocate for the U.S. Marine Corps and a second-year law student at UC Berkeley Hastings College of the Law. When the VA denied his claim for his father’s service-connected death, he spent the next four years trying to understand how the bureaucratic system functioned — or failed to function.

Guest article follows: my own experience with the VA duty to help gather evidence to support

veterans' claim was quite painful. For verification of Agent Orange claims the VA turns to the Department of Defense Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) for confirmation of exposures outside Vietnam. Despite the fact that JSRRC serves as the VA research authority, for years VA succeeded in blocking JSRRC input vital to confirm our exposures aboard C-123s to the VA.

FACT: VA would not accept the JSRRC input, even though it is required to at the VA Adjudication Manual M 21 – 1MR. 

FACT: even though JSRRC confirmation eventually reached the VA, VA failed to act on it in violation of its own regulations, because individuals at VA were determined to, in the words of its consultant Dr. Alvin Young, "hold the line" against our disability claims. This was on their personal prejudice and their office unofficial personal policy of blocking our claims.

When I first learned that the JSRRC did not have all the material it needed about our aircraft, I had it sent to them by the Air Force Office of Historical Records Research, by the CDC, by the US Public Health Service, by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, by medical schools and schools of public health all across the country. I visited the director of the JSRRC, Mr. Dominic Baldini (a Coast Guard veteran) and was impressed by his desire to serve the needs of America's veterans. That is, if VA would allow him to do so.

The JSRRC is in Fort Belvoir Virginia and I wanted to get there so badly I had to take my wheelchair four miles from the bus drop off point to his office where I was warmly received by Mr. Baldini and his staff. And four miles back to my bus after that meeting.

The VA contact for the JSRRC was Mr. James Samsel who ran the VA Agent Orange desk, and it was his responsibility to liaise between the two agencies. The problem was Mr. Sampsel kept telling the JSRRC it would not accept input about our exposures for a variety of reasons cited in different ways over the years.

When Mr. Sampsel said he would not accept scientist or physician input except for military officers, we had it provided by commissioned officers of the US Public Health Service who are considered by law serving military officers.

Then Mr. Sampsel wouldn't accept input because he hadn't specifically requested it from the JSRRC. Another method Mr. Sampsel used to block JSRRC confirmation of our exposures was to insist only federal government documentation would suffice. This is despite VA Adjudication Manual 21 – 1MR stating JSRRC is responsible for gathering evidence from all the federal government agencies. In his zeal to block C-123 veterans' claims, Mr. Sampsel apparently decided the CDC, US PHS, NIESH and other Federal sources would not suffice because they too directly confirmed the veterans exposures and abused his intent to deny VA medical care and compensation.

By 2013 the JSRRC and Mr. Baldini had had enough grief for me about this that they simply force-fed confirmation of my exposure to Mr. Baldini by sending him an email. This didn't seem to help much because Mr. Samsel simply refused to act on it and the issue finally was resolved only by Secretary McDonald and his interim final rule published in June 2015.

But Mr. Sampsel should still claim victory because he personally blocked 2100 C-123 veterans claims for four years and blocked us out of VA hospitals and denied us compensation for our injuries and illnesses. His great respect for his friend Dr. Young have much to do with his motivation and his shouting throughout the VA for many years that he had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against our claims – evidence consisting only of the VA webpage saying so, plus his preference for input from Dr. Young rather than the CDC, US Public Health Service and all the other authorities supporting our claims.

In the end the Institute of medicine study clearly established our exposure injuries but it was only a partial victory against the clear victory Mr. Sampsel enjoyed in keeping us from the VA hospital for four years. Contrary to law, his department was anti-claimant, adversarial, and obstructionist. He succeeded in "holding the line" against our claims as recommended by his favored consultant, Dr. Al Young.

CONCLUSION: VA hurt us through intrinsic and extrinsic ethical failures, none of which remain addressed today.

----------------------------------------------------------

By Kevin Courtney November 22, 2016 Updated: November 22, 2016 10:06pm

The Navy’s Blue Angels performed jaw-dropping maneuvers and inspired our next generation’s service members during San Francisco’s Fleet Week last month. Unfortunately, those future sailors and Marines might end up like today’s veterans, suffering from a failing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Thanksgiving is a great opportunity to reflect on how we can best serve our veterans and their families.

Veterans’ benefits claims may go undecided for more than a year, an unimaginably difficult year for those who haven’t experienced it. Our newly elected government leaders should address how the VA can better care for our veterans.

Today, the VA has a duty to assist veterans in preparing their claims by getting complete and relevant records from any federal agency. Congress created this “duty to assist” by passing the Veterans Claims Assistance Act in 2000. Under this standard, the VA must “make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant.” But what happens when a reasonable effort falls short of accurate or complete records? Deciding a claim based on inferior records likely requires an appeal, and the veteran will consequently suffer unnecessary financial and emotional stress.

The U.S. Supreme Court believes the VA should be a “pro claimant” and “non-adversarial” department when deciding claims because it is the sole agency responsible for providing federal benefits to veterans and their families. And there are two features built into the VA’s claim process to help veterans: first is the lack of a statute of limitations for bringing disability claims. A statute of limitations is usually the maximum amount of time after an event a veteran can bring his legal claim. The second feature is the VA’s more liberal burden of proof, which should allow it to decide in the veteran’s favor when the evidence supporting his claim is only 50/50. But are VA employees following these standards?

Congress has increased the VA’s budget every year over the past decade, so insufficient funding is not a reason why the VA fails to be “pro claimant.” While VA executives continue to receive performance bonuses, veterans are left waiting for help. It is important for President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of veterans affairs to change the ethos found within the VA, improve its efficiency and ingrain compassion in employees. There are thousands of dedicated, caring VA employees, but some require a reminder that behind every claim is a veteran who honorably served this country. And they need the VA’s help before it’s too late.

Twenty veterans commit suicide every day in our country. If the VA streamlined its system, then some of these veterans might get the timely help they need.

The VA has an obligation to realize its mission: “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise ‘To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan’ by serving and honoring the men and women who are America’s veterans.”

This Thanksgiving holiday, consider the benefits you enjoy thanks to a veteran. Then consider how you want the VA to treat our veterans.

Kevin M. Courtney is a student judge advocate for the U.S. Marine Corps and a second-year law student at UC Hastings College of the Law. When the VA denied his claim for his father’s service-connected death, he spent the next four years trying to understand how the bureaucratic system functioned — or failed to function.

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

Department of Justice Confirms...AND EXCUSED...VA PHONY SCIENCE

VA Post Deployment Health simply made it up. Since accepted science didn't agree with VA policy objectives, VA simply revised science to insure veterans' claims were denied.

On December 1, the US Department of Justice confirmed that for years a handful of VA staffers had twisted science into a policy goal. That twisted goal: denial of valid Agent Orange exposure claims from C-123 veterans.

Please try to follow this. It is how VA refused years of medical care and other vital benefits to thousands of veterans who flew or maintained the former C-123 Agent Orange spray airplanes.

In 2012, faced with Agent Orange exposure claims from C-123 veterans, VA's Veterans Health Administration Post Deployment Health Section simply invented their own unique VA-only redefinition of "exposure" to prevent all such claims. The proper standard definition of exposure (Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary, VA's standard reference) confirmed the veterans' claims, so VA twisted that word into phony science, meant only to further VA policy, not justice or good medical care.

All they had to do was bury a simple deceptive and scientifically-flawed sentence into a poster presentation VA gave at the 2012 Society of Toxicology conference in San Francisco:

"Exposure = contamination field + bioavailability."

VA poster redefinition of "exposure"

Other government agencies deny any bioavailability requirement for
exposure to occur; NIH labeled VA definition "unscientific"

In their terminology slight of hand, VA said that exposure couldn't exist without a contaminate plus proven bioavailability of that contaminante. No proof of bioavailability, however impossible to actually prove, was to mean no exposure...at least to the VA. Burn pits, immunizations, dirty water, biohazards, toxins...all the things a veteran might encounter via inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact, VA would refuse to concede exposure unless the impossible was done...a vet had to prove the bioavailability of the contamination. 

Not only did this piece of VA newspeak conflict with Dorlands Illustrated Medical Dictionary, but also with other VA and government with VA's own standard source for scientific and medical terms. Other VA agencies used the proper definition of exposure, but not VHA's Post Deployment.

Other government agencies and other VA departments simply use the proper definitions published by the CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, where "exposure = Contact with a substance by swallowing, breathing, or touching the skin or eyes." That's the CDC definition, the EPA definition, the NIH definition.

So back to the Department of Justice report on VA and its reinvention of "exposure" back in 2012.

In 2013, C-123 veterans filed suit against the VA in the US District Court of Washington, demanding the background for VA's "exposure" redefinition and the basis on which VA's Society of Toxicology poster came to be. This week, DOJ finally revealed: 

 Dr. XXXX did not create the poster based on existing documents, but upon her experience assessing that and other exposure scenarios.  The statement "exposure = concentration present + bioavailability" did not previously exist in any documents of which she is aware.

So the redefinition, published over the names of Dr. Terra Irons, Dr. Wendy Dick, Dr. Terry Walters and Dr. Michael Peterson (all of VHA Public Health) was simply made up. Never existed before, and created for this poster to then be used to block C-123 veterans' claims.

And that's exactly how it was used. In February 2013, C-123 vets met with Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Service. Besides telling the veterans no amount of proof would be acceptable to establish their exposure claims, he explained that Dr. Terry Walters had already concluded no C-123 veteran's Agent Orange exposure was to be permitted based on her own redefinition of exposure.

Invited by Mr. Murphy to discuss the issue with Dr. Walters, we found her redefinition just as we'd been told, with the additional point she made that few, if any, Vietnam veterans were ever exposed to Agent Orange based on her new definition of exposure. And it was a definition of exposure contrary to every other federal agency, including the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences as well as other VA departments.

But we have to ask: how did a PhD one year out of grad school at Carolina opt to redefine a fundamental term in toxicology, just so OPH could deny exposure claims? And again, the Department of Justice simply reported to us that she did it, pretty much by herself, calling on her specialty of mollusk toxicology to provide enough scientific wherewithal to refuse medical care to thousands of Agent Orange exposed veterans.

And on that weak, policy-driven basis, VA continued to order C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims denied until June 2015. That date was the publication of the Secretary's Interim Final Rule, recognizing the Institute of Medicine finding that C-123 vets had indeed been exposed. And exposed in the true scientific meaning of that word!

VA C-123 "Fact Sheet" from Secretary Shinseki Overloaded With Errors & Misstatements; Senate Deceived

Shown below is the most significant explanation offered by the VA detailing VBA's policies against C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims. It reveals the errors, misstatements, omissions and prevarications that served as the basis for VA having refused C-123 veterans medical care and other benefits.(click for a detailed analysis of each red X.) These many challenges from veterans, although carefully substantiated, were unanswered – VA policies against C-123 veterans continued unchanged but we now see all the VA's errors and misstatements.

Although overburdened with errors, marked here with red Xs, this was provided the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in response to Senator Richard Burr's (R-NC) letter to Secretary Shinseki, and addressed in great detail VA's many obstructions. Because it served as the vehicle to determine whether or not VA would permit medical care to C-123 veterans, it needed to be completely accurate for such an important decision...instead the red Xs show the entire document fatally flawed because we have the advantage of the IOM report, CDC and two years of the facts becoming clearer, and VA's errors becoming clearer as well.

There is no excuse for a single error on a letter from a member of the President's Cabinet to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. There is no excuse for refusing life-saving medical care with a policy laden with such errors. There is no excuse for staff work deceiving the Secretary in such a manner.

The errors now being seen more clearly, VA is proceeding with honoring C-123 veterans' claims and will no longer follow its blanket refusal policy.

A particular flaw in this deception of the Senate is the failure to note VBA Compensation Service (which drafted this for the Secretary's signature) failing to acknowledge having received four months earlier the March 2013 Joint Services Records Research Center confirmation of C-123 veterans' exposures.

From June 2013 until the January 2015 Institute of Medicine report to Secretary McDonald, this was VA's fundamental argument, and made very formal with the two pages of "Fact Sheet." The "Fact Sheet," was cited as an authority by VAROs until January 2015.

C-123 Flight Suits – Before & After Agent Orange Contamination Identified on Our Aircraft

(L) BEFORE TELLING US OF CONTAMINATION                     (R) AFTER AF RELEASED THE NEWS

We were issued regular Nomex flight suits for duty aboard the C-123 between 1972-1982. In 1994 the Air Force learned the former Agent Orange spray airplanes remained contaminated with dioxin since the end of the Vietnam War and return of the airplanes to the US in 1972. Everyone in or near the stored C-123s at Davis-Monthan was ordered to wear full HAZMAT, at this point 23 years AFTER the last Agent Orange spray missions in Vietnam. Now, VA insists that aircrews were unexposed even aboard those contaminated airplanes without wearing PPE. CDC says otherwise: we were exposed, suffered a 200-fold greater cancer risk, and should have been in full HAZMAT protection from the very first flights in 1972.

Full HAZMAT as on the right was the only thing good enough for AF civilian employees. The Air Force Surgeon General was quite clear that the C-123s were dangerous and authorities wanted to protect base workers.

For Air Force personnel, neither the AF nor the VA had the same concern for safety of our pilots, navigators, flight engineers, loadmasters, flight nurses, maintenance personnel and flight medics...green NOMEX flight suits, useless for any protection, were all we had issued us. Money saved, too, by not decontaminating the C-123s even after the 1979 tests started revealing the presence of deadly Agent Orange.

Conclusion: authorities pretend that aircrews were safe for the decade C-123s were flown after Vietnam, but realized that civilian workers, backed by unions which complained via the USAF IG, needed full HAZMAT. Because of the cost of providing medical care to Agent Orange-exposed C-123 veterans, the VA and AF together pretend there was no exposure even in the face of other federal agencies insistence that we WERE exposed. This is wrong!

VA Defies NIH & CDC – Insists Dioxin is Harmless

The Department of Veterans Affairs defies scientific opinions from leading health experts at CDC, EPA, OHSA, the National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, and elsewhere throughout the government. VA has refused veterans' dioxin exposure disability claims on the basis of dioxin being harmless. The veteran had claimed exposure to Agent Orange, which contained dioxin, the common name for the toxin TCDD.

"In summary, there is no conclusive evidence of TCDD causing any adverse health effects."

This statement summarizes VA's denial of a veteran's claim based on Agent Orange exposure aboard the Air Force Agent Orange spray C-123 transports, flown after the war until 1982. Agent Orange is simply harmless?

The summary is the official position of Veterans Benefits Administration executive Mr. Tom Murphy. Mr. Murphy is Director, Compensation and Pension Service, and heads VA's organization managing disability claims. His statement, over his signature, was read back to him at his office in February 2012, in the event of a possible misquote or typo. It was not retracted or modified and he allows it to stand as part of his decision to refuse VA medical care for an Air Force veteran's prostate cancer, a recognized Agent Orange exposure ailment.

Mr. Murphy did mention he could not be familiar with every document leaving his office over his signature, but again, permitted no change or modification of this unusual statement, even considering that it served as his basis for refusing medical care for a veteran's cancer, as well as several other ailments the VA associates with Agent Orange.

A year after being submitted, the veteran's claim was denied in 2012. The claim remains denied over two years later, still in appeal in the VA' s additional two to three year long process with the Board of Veterans Appeals. There, such an obvious scientific mistake is nearly certain to be corrected, but the process (called remand) merely sends the claim back to the original VA office with the errors pointed out and instructions to reconsider.

More years thus await a cancer victim seeking a VA's help surviving terrible illnesses. If he or she survives, it will only be because care was found somewhere other the the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Veterans who served in Vietnam are all presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange and are provided care. VA had been asked by Congress and veterans service organizations about meeting the needs of veterans exposed outside Vietnam and three times via the Federal Register VA assured Congress that all exposed veterans are to be treated. Here, by pretending both that Agent Orange is harmless and exposed vets somehow weren't' exposed per the VA's unique definition of "exposure," VA's unofficial policy of blocking disability claims perfected. Why?

VA is determined, as its Deputy Chief Consultant of Post Deployment informed the Associated Press, with denying Agent Orange claims because, "You have to draw the line somewhere." Other federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, CDC, OHSA and EPA, are concerned with health, not drawing lines over veterans' TCDD exposure claims. At VA, veterans' health and survival comes second to "draw line somewhere." In such denials, VA carefully considered the input received from Dow and Monsanto, who along with the VA's $300,000 per year Agent Orange consultant, strongly oppose veterans' exposure benefits.

This was strongly opposed by the Committee of Concerned Scientists and Physicians, with Dr. Jeanne Stellman of Columbia University as the corresponding scientist. The input of these dozens of experts was ignored because VA had predetermined (in VHA's Post Deployment Health Section) that all the claims were to be denied regardless of proofs and evidence.

Mr. Murphy was manifestly wrong in his statement regarding TCDD being harmless. Rather, TCDD is the most toxic and potent of the toxins.  To VA a denied claim, even if eventually overturned in the veteran's favor,  is a win-win situation because VA is able to deny medical care for many years in the process. Years when caring for cancer and heart disease patients becomes a very expensive proposition.

Here's what the National Institutes of Health tells us about about dioxin:

"TCDD dioxin is listed as a human carcinogen in the Thirteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program because it causes cancer, particularly lung cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 

Exposure to high levels of dioxins can cause reproductive and development problems, suppression of the immune system, increased heart disease and diabetes, changes in hormonal levels, liver damage, and abnormalities of the pancreas, circulatory, and respiratory systems. 

Exposure to low levels of TCDD can cause dermatitis, gastrointestinal problems, and excessive body hair. 

Exposure to low levels of all dioxins can cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose, and throat; headache; dizziness; fatigue; blurred vision; urinary tract disorders; muscle and joint pain; impaired muscle coordination; nausea; and vomiting."

Here's what the Department of Veterans Affairs and Mr. Murphy tells us about dioxin:

 "Claim Denied." "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence of TCDD causing  any adverse health effects."  

The statement might be scientifically and medically wrong and absolutely contrary to experts throughout the government (as well as in the VA!) but Mr. Murphy's objective was met: VA drew its line and, as the VA and Office of Secretary of Defense Agent Orange consultant put it, veterans he considers "freeloaders, trash-haulers looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman" were told to seek care elsewhere...anywhere but the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Murphy's statement thus gets another claim out of the infamous VA backlog by the easy step of denying it, and helps resolve VA's budget and long lines in VA hospitals by keeping Agent Orange veterans' decisions denied as long as possible.

If only veterans could turn to Mr. Murphy to resolve their cancers with his pen as readily as he solves VA's problems.