C-123 Post-Vietnam Aircrew and Maintainers: Agent Orange Exposure CONFIRMED by IOM!

Exposure CONFIRMED! Last hurdle overcome!

In a clear message to the VA and USAF, yesterday the Institute of Medicine dismissed any questions of C-123 post-Vietnam Agent Orange exposure with their press release announcing conclusion of a year-long investigation. IOM confirmed the post-Vietnam exposures of C-123 aircrews and maintenance personnel in their VA-sponsored research.

This is a game-changer as VA has stated, through Under Secretary Allison Hickey, that whichever way the IOM report recommended the VA would likely follow. VA executives were briefed on Thursday and the IOM released their C-123 investigation to the public, legislators and the press on Friday. Following the report's presentation, VA leaders said staff was already working on the implications of the IOM's finding and details were being resolved.

The VA has been hit hard this last year, which with justification will be remembered as the year of the scandals. This is a scandal resolved, through the efforts of the scientific community )to include IOM as well as the independent scientists and physicians who continued to reveal the basis for C-123 veterans' exposure claims,) and VA staff which opened the door and their hearts with determination to resolve this mess.

So the resolution is on its way. We should see changes in VA web pages, communication from VA to their staff, press releases from VA on its views regarding the IOM report, and we hope...claims being released from the current suspended status ordered for all such claims.

Let's hope this is as much as win-win as it seems. In my mind, it leaves all involved a solid justification for feeling their duty to America's veterans has been satisfied. Congratulations!

News Coverage of C-123 Issues – Just Published

This week saw two articles about our C-123 veterans' long journey towards VA recognition of our Agent Orange claims. The National Journal covered us on October 8 lending their great influcence in the DC area with the article repeated in other publications including Government Executive.

The second was an interview in Portland, Oregon, of Dr. Fred Berman. Berman co-authored the February Environmental Research article,  “Post­-Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC­123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft.” I found this the most interesting, because the writer interviewing Dr. Berman "promoted" this major to an Air Force General.

Forgive me if I take a few days to savor this before offering a correction.

Environmental Research Journal Proves C-123 Veterans Exposed!

The journal Environmental Research released its article  "Post-Vietnam military herbicide exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange spray aircraft" today. It proves post-Vietnam aircrews were exposed to Agent Orange, previously denied by both the USAF and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authors Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Dr. Richard Clapp, Dr. Peter Lurker and Dr. Fred Berman have established that C-123 aircrews and maintenance workers were exposed. That word "exposed" is critical...the law requires veterans claiming Agent Orange outside Vietnam to prove exposure. This article does that!

Dr. Lurker is particularly familiar with the 2012 Air Force Consultant Report which concluded aircrews were probably not exposed. This suggests the report from the Air Force was faulty...the Air Force report was not subjected to critical outside peer review, as was this article released today.

Congratulations to the authors on their contribution to toxicological scholarship. And our thanks as well as for their scientific expertise and assistance to veterans of the C-123 seeking VA medical care and other benefits, thus far denied.

Every veteran submitting an Agent Orange exposure claim, or who has a claim in process, or who has a denied claim being appealed, needs to submit this article to substantiate the fact that our "boots on the airplane" meant Agent Orange exposure. 

Confirmed!

Our Pictorial History of Post-Vietnam Agent Orange Exposures

 1961-1971
C-123K medium assault transports modified to spray as UC-123K, dispersed Agent Orange throughout South Vietnam from although in later years spraying was gradually reduced. 1971 –aircraft returned to the US; spray tanks were removed, the airplanes then flown to their new units without any decontamination.

1972-1982
Wearing standard flight suits, C-123 fleet was then flown by Air National Guard and USAF Reserve squadrons (Massachusetts, Ohio, & Pennsylvania) as the Vietnam War ended. 1979 tests identified herbicide contamination. Crews assured all aircraft safe. 1982 – C-123s retired to desert “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ.

1994-2009
1994 AF toxicologists reported C-123 “heavily contaminated” with dioxin. Full HAZMAT then ordered for all personnel in or near the toxic airplanes.
2001 – all C-123s were gathered into a special, high security quarantine area, reacting to base employee TCDD IG complaints.

June 2010 – on recommendation of the Office of Secretary of Defense Senior Consultant to several civilian and military officials, with concerns expressed that veterans already exposed might seek VA medical care, all C-123s destroyed by USAF as hazardous waste with special measures taken to insure the "below-the-radar" operation.

2011-2014: "VA will permit no C-123 Agent Orange exposure disability claims" 

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.

C-123 Veterans Claims vs. VA Counter-Claims: Who is Ahead?

The Balance of Arguments

Veterans:

- "It is my opinion that (C-123) aircrews operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD."

(Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director, CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry)

- "It is my professional opinion that (veteran name withheld) (and likely, other aircrew veterans who flew these aircraft in the same time period) was exposed to harmful levels of dioxin." 

(Dr. Fred Berman, Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department) 

- "(The C-123 is) heavily contaminated. A danger to public health."

(Dr. Ron Porter, toxicologist, USAF Armstrong Laboratories)

- "In my opinion, it is highly likely that you and other crew members were exposed to the herbicides and to their highly toxic contaminant, 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (dioxin, for short)" 

(Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emerita, Columbia University School of Public Health)

- In my professional judgment you are at increased risk for illness from the dioxin in Agent Orange because of your exposure to it from your (C-123) military service”

(Dr. Arnold Schecter, Professor, University of Texas School of Public Health)

VA:

- "No conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."

(VA Compensation Services in 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 veterans’) Claims are decided on an individual basis."

VA Public Health Bulletin (however: 100% of claims denied -  0% approved, but on an "individual" basis, of course!)

- C-123 vets are "Trash-haulers. Freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar. I have no respect for them but do for combat vets."

(The DoD & USAF consultant on Agent Orange, his 2011 email re: C-123 vets; in 2010 he recommended “quiet, low-visibility” destruction of C-123 fleet to prevent veterans learning of C-123 contamination & crew exposure. Most C-123 veterans are combat veterans of Vietnam, Desert Storm or both)

VA Director Compensation & Pension Service Slams C-123 Vets

Tom Murphy, VA Director of Compensation Services

"Claim Denied!" "Veteran submitted a few documents." Thus did Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation Service for the VA fulfill his organizational duty of automatically denying a C-123 veteran's claim, no mater how justified the clam actually is. Thank you for your service, indeed!

The particular claim in question, one of our first C-123 claims, had over 80 supporting documents. Articles from medical journals detailing identical situations. Letters from physicians and scientists offering expert independent opinions. Sworn testimony of other veterans, including unit commanders, field grade officers, flight examiners and instructors, senior NCOs, fellow veterans. Treatment records from VA, military and civilian hospitals. Lots of stuff. And all of it, no matter how much of it, no matter what the science, all of it not enough.

Never enough to overcome the VA's knee-jerk automatic rejection of any dioxin exposure claim by every veteran outside those with Boots on the Ground in Vietnam, and some minor and very specific Thailand and Korea situations. For C-123 veterans, the full weight and majesty of the VA swings into action to immediately construct barriers to justice and medical treatment. To explain, even in the face of proof, why there is no proof. To explain even, even with dozens of non-VA experts and other federal agencies claiming veterans were exposed, why there was no exposure.

Why? "Because we say so!"

Duty to Assist? Benefit of the doubt to rest with the veteran? Again, no. Never. The VA, in two years of working with us, has done absolutely nothing to seek confirming evidence or opinions as the question of  C-123 veterans' exposure came to light. Not once have they ever introduced or admitted to a single fact which could be interpreted as supportive of C-123 veterans' claims. Every citation they have offered in their "scientific" bulletins has been to deny exposure claims. Every single reference, expert, whatever that supports the veterans' claims has been ignored. They probably had a struggle admitting that there ever were C-123 airplanes and people who flew them! "What? C-123? Never heard of it? Thank you for your service.

There is not a single scientific or academic journal which would accept such shoddy work from authors seeking publication of an obviously slanted article! Any reputable journal would demand a juried review, and that panel of independent experts would condemn using their loudest megaphone the lack of even-handed, scholarly work in such materials. "Unscientific" was the description offered by independent scientists. "Not dioxin experts" was the description offered by another federal agency's head after careful investigation...and that person is a dioxin expert!

Any benefit of the doubt? Never, not when the VA's nuclear-powered mission focusses denying veterans' claims, even when such claims are within the scope of their judgement. The benefit of the doubt to the VA means that if there is any possible way to reject claims, that way must be seized upon. The benefit of the doubt to the VA means that unless compelled by law, ordered by Congress, only those veterans specifically named in the law are covered, not those whom the law may allow to be interpreted as covered - and so the VA exercises every possible twist and turn, obfuscation, delay, evidence misinterpretation, denial of truth handed them on a golden platter - all to prevent C-123 veterans from getting medical attention for our Agent Orange illnesses.


 Veterans Say:
-"It is my opinion that aircrews operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD."
(Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director, CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry)
- "It is my professional opinion that (veteran name withheld) (and likely, other aircrew veterans who flew these aircraft in the same time period) was exposed to harmful levels of dioxin." 

(Dr. Fred Berman, Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department) 
- "Heavily contaminated. A danger to public health."
(Dr. Ron Porter, toxicologist, USAF Armstrong Laboratories)
- "In my opinion, it is highly likely that you and other crew members were exposed to the herbicides and to their highly toxic contaminant, 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (dioxin, for short)," 

(Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emerita, Columbia University School of Public Health)

But VA Says:

- "No conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."
VA Compensation Services in 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 )
- "Claims will be decided on an individual basis."
VA Public Health Bulletin (however: 100% of claims denied -  0% approved, but on an "individual" basis, of course!)
- C-123 vets are "Trash-haulers. Freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar. I have no respect."
(VA & USAF consultant on Agent Orange, email re: C-123 veterans; also recommended destruction of C-123 fleet to prevent veterans learning of C-123 contamination & crew exposure)

C-123 Veterans DUMPED by DAV, PVA Veterans Organizations!

VFW - thanks for your Nov 6 offer to help!!

We started asking for help last April, when the founders of our Association began uncovering Air Force documents establishing the dioxin contamination of the C-123 fleet. We wrote executives of the American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America (correction - offer of help received 6 Nov), and received their powerful and encouraging support in our effort to get VA recognition of exposure.

PVA - REFUSED TO HELP!

But we were totally ignored by the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Disabled American Veterans. Despite helping us, and our individual members, being part of their Congressional charter and for which they work hard raising funds from the public, these three well-known veterans' organizations ignored every phone call, every visit by us to them, every request for a meeting, every email, every letter to their headquarters staff!

I belong to each of these veterans' organizations, paying dues or having already paid for lifetime memberships as with the DAV and PVA. Why are they content to focus on fund raising but not able to take a moment to write to the VA with a statement of support?

Oregon DVA - REFUSED TO HELP!

I have life-threatening diseases which numerous scientists and my cardiologist conclude are due from Agent Orange exposure. But veterans groups aren't persuaded to help? What is your personal threshold for doing something...do you require ten PhD statements rather than the eight already put forward? What scientific evidence do you need to persuade you when I have already won the help from Portland's Veterans Affairs Regional Office which recommended my claim be approved? You weren't persuaded?

VA Undersecretary for Benefits Writes re: C-123 Agent Orange

Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hinkey(Brig. Gen. USAF Ret.)

Undersecretary for Benefits Allison Hickey wrote me yesterday to review the VA's position denying C-123 veterans service-connection for Agent Orange-related illnesses. We are especially respectful of her background as an aircraft commander, retired general officer and Air Force spouse. And we know from her appearance on the Hill she can really control her temper!

Secretary Hickey used her letter to explain a new point, not previously raised by the VA in preventing our claims: she writes "Currently, there is no equivalent legal basis for acknowledging "secondary" or "remote" Agent Orange exposure, such as that from contact with material or equipment previously used in Vietnam."

Here Secretary Hinkey misses the point. We are claiming primary exposure, as well, perhaps, as secondary, with the Agent Orange residue left on the airplane, as identified by every Air Force test between 1979 and 2009! As with the various successful claims by veterans who've been exposed in locales other than Vietnam, we have made clear that we were indeed not in Vietnam (other than our own many Vietnam veterans) but that our duties directly exposed us to "heavily contaminated" dioxin-laden aircraft - NOT to a "secondary" exposure.

She writes "...the potential for exposure to dioxin from flying or working in contaminated C-123 aircraft, years after Vietnam, is unlikely to have occurred in levels that could affect health." I offer a couple points here:
1. We flew these airplanes immediately after their use in Vietnam. The last spray missions were 1971 and we started flying (and cleaning out!) the C-123 in 1972. The first tests establishing contamination were in 1979 and the AF Armstrong Labs reported the airplanes still "heavily contaminated" more than two decades after Vietnam! Before being tested in '79 the aircraft had already gone through depot-level attempts to clean them out as well as base-level physical scraping the "crud" away.
2. Dioxin has a half-life of seven years (other than in direct UV) so, as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pointed out, the airplanes were MORE contaminated in earlier years 1972-1982, plus our exposure was not for the year or so Vietnam vets spent in-country but instead a full decade aboard the C-123!
3. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 and other statutes set no threshold for how much dioxin a veteran must be exposed to. The laws say "exposure". The laws say the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must weigh scientific and medical evidence in determining a veteran's claim for exposure - we suggest our scientific evidence is ample, sound, persuasive and overwhelmingly more expert than that of the VA's young toxicologist assigned to prevent our claims. The Secretary should be aware that the VA was unable to complete any new research because the airplanes were all destroyed in 2010, so they were only able to do a literature review. We point out that their selection of certain articles and failure to cite others was a blatant effort to twist science - to use (or incorrectly interpret) publications only to reach a pre-determinated negative conclusion. Hardly science!

The law, as we are given to understand it, requires a veteran to prove "boots on the ground" in Vietnam, or to meet a tougher standard of (1) proving the existence of contamination and (2) the route of exposure and (3) the presence of an Agent Orange-recognized illness and the nexus of that illness to the Agent Orange exposure. We have met this burden of proof. In spades!

How have we done this? How have we met every requirement thrown at us?
1. Contamination: Air Force tests done by qualified toxicologists established the presence of large amounts of military herbicides, including Agent Orange, as early as 1979 as reported in the Conway report. Conway also notes that the request for his survey came from the 439th Tactical Hospital, and followed years of effort by maintenance personnel and civilian depot facilities to remove the smell (associated with malathion, not Agent Orange) and black and brown gooey substances found throughout the fuselage. 
2. Route of Exposure: Toxicologists have weighed in this to support C-123 veterans. Drs. Jeanne Stellman, Fred Berman, Joe Goeppner, Wayne Dwernychuk and Tom Sinks explained in detail to the VA our exposure was via dermal, inhalation and ingestion routes. VA countered by creating a concept of "dry dioxin transfer" to explain how we were able to be in a contaminated airplane without  being exposed, but this has been debunked by toxicologists. Dr. Stellman flatly labeled it "unscientific!" We note the primary person assigned by the VA to create a position paper against our eligibility is a very recent PhD whose background was mollusk toxicology. We note the multitude of internationally recognized toxicologists who have established our exposure as "more likely than not."  A simple Google or Scholar search provides for a meaningful comparison of reputation and credibility - one that no court in the nation would fail to find persuasive.
3. Agent Orange illness & medical nexus: Of course, we allege no new Agent Orange illnesses, and rely on the already-establsihed list recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Each of our veterans seeking medical care from the VA can and should evidence one of those illnesses to be qualified for VA care. The medical nexus between an individual veteran's exposure and an Agent Orange illness is, for all practical purposes, completely impossible to prove. Instead, we again rely on the VA's own policies as well as the various IOM reports. My own VA application was recently denied by the VA's Director of Compensation Service. He claimed that the four PhD toxicologists who detailed my/our Agent Orange exposure aboard the C-123 were not qualified to make their recommendations because they weren't physicians. Well, neither were most of the VA staff who worked this issue, and neither were any of the authors of references cited by them in their reports!

Secretary Hinkey, please spend some quality time with VHA to discuss the assignment given to construct a position for the VA's use preventing C-123 veterans' eligibility for VA care. Please spend some quality time with Dr. Tom Sinks, deputy director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and Dr. Jeanne Stellman as they explain how our crews were exposed to long-term, low-dose TCDD toxins! Spend some quality time letting us make our case, Madam Secretary!

VA C-123 Agent Orange Denial - Physicians' Opinions Only?

The VA's Public Health folks, and especially the Director of Compensation, have aggressively countered every argument we've put forward about our Agent Orange exposure aboard our C-123 aircraft. With their most recent action, denying my own Agent Orange application, the VA dismissed the opinions of noted scientists because these experts weren't physicians.

Interesting. Particularly so, because the VA's position where they've twisted the acknowledged contamination of the C-123 into a hypothesis that exposure to aircrew was unlikely, they turned to a scientist, and not a physician, to develop their position. A recent University of North Carolina grad (where our daughter graduated also!) While very hard to locate in Google Scholar, the VA's toxicologist's specialty seems to be mollusk toxicology and apparently hasn't published much since receiving the doctorate in 2011. 

So the VA assigned their expert to, not as the public would would hope, examine with an open mind the issue of C-123 dioxin contamination and aircrew exposure, but instead construct whatever negative argument that would suffice to deny veterans' their benefits. Science, justice and law notwithstanding! And the VA "expert", with only limited experience, concluded (as directed) aircrew exposure was an "unlikely" situation, a view used immediately by the VA, even in the face of numerous expert toxicologists (both university-based and from other federal agencies including NIH and CDC) with over three decades experience who have all concluded veterans were indeed exposed. Thus, the VA has denied medical care to Agent Orange-exposed veterans based solely on the selective list of publications reviewed - and no publications were permitted to be reviewed except for very old ones or ones which in some way had a negative perspective. This kind of science would never be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal!

I sure hope we can trust the VA's staffer to have gained a comprehensive grasp of dioxin-related health issues in this first year with the VA. 


But amazing that the VA denies the expertise of ten other PdDs whose research confirms aircrew exposure...denies the exposure because these PhDs aren't physicians. 

But neither was the VA toxicologist! Clearly, then, the VA accepts VA PhD judgements only if the PdD works for the VA and opposes veterans issues!

Please try Google Scholar for a search on (sorry, name deleted to be polite) who is barely a blip on the toxicology radar. Then,  compare it to a search for Dr. Jeanne Stellman, for whom Scholar reports hundreds upon hundreds of publications, references, authorities. Dr. Stellman, who has for decades been the go-to expert scholar sought out by the National Academy of Sciences, the US Congress, the Federal courts, government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian government and even the USAF.

Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emerita Columbia
University Mailman School of Public Health

It is interesting to note that VA's toxicologist, in preparing the poster presentation at the 2011 Society of Toxicology conference, improperly cited authors who had asked that their studies not be used regarding aircrew exposure. Interesting that VA ignored the already published findings by Dr. Stellman, Dr. Fred Berman at Oregon Health Sciences University, and Dr. Tom Sinks, deputy director of the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry...ignored them because only materials supporting the VA's position were to be used! One wonders why the SOT accepted such a poster presentation!

We are also left wondering why the VA develops a toxicology-based argument against aircrew exposure, and then twists it to rule invalid the opinions of the best scientists in the field of toxicology and accepts instead a literature by a recent graduate just settling into the responsibilities of the new VA job...as a toxicologist!  

Ya gotta laugh or start crying!