Patches & the IOM C-123 Agent Orange Report

Visiting the USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB and home of "Patches," our Agent Orange-contaminated C-123.

To all post-Vietnam C-123 Veterans: if you haven't already, contact VA and arrange your Agent Orange Registry physical. This is a free comprehensive exam looking for any possible Agent Orange exposure medical issues and it is vital whether you have any such illnesses or not. The first friend I talk into having the physical was found to have a life-threatening heart problem, and the physical perhaps saved his life. Call VA now!

I'm holding the report from the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Sciences that convinced the VA our aircraft had been contaminated, we were exposed to Agent Orange, and we were harmed greatly by that exposure. Behind me is Patches, now decontaminated, of course. CDC actually notified VA that Patches and our other aircraft were too contaminated to be flown in American airspace, and the crews all should have been wearing full hazmat!

The report summary can be downloaded free at https://www.google.com/url…

The archives at the museum revealed the evidence of testing back in 1979 and 1994 and 1996, and the evidence that USAF bioenvironmental scientists concluded the airplane was "heavily contaminated with dioxin on all test surfaces, STILL after its last spray missions in 1968 during the Vietnam War.

We started flying Patches in 1972 and were exposed to the Agent Orange residue for the next decade. Although the CDC informed VA and USAF that the aircrews and maintainers had been exposed, officials at VA continued to insist otherwise and stated VA had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against any harm being done.

In 2014 it became clear, based on the IOM study and the report I'm holding, that VA's position was based solely on its policy decision to block additional Agent Orange claims like ours. Policy, not science. Policy, not law.

The US Senate agreed. Under leadership from Senator Burr of North Carolina and Senator Merkley of Oregon the Senate blocked all VA confirmations until the C-123 issue was resolved. The national commander of the VFW testified to Congress that that full benefits for C-123 vets must be authorized,  All six major veterans organizations insisted VA act, with the Vietnam Veterans of America leading their joint efforts.

The media was behind us all the way. The first press coverage was in early 2011 in the Air Force Times where reporter Patricia Kime detailed our USAF Inspector General complaint wherein the service was asked, but refused, to notify our veterans of their potential exposures. Subsequent articles appeared in the Washington Post, Springfield Republican, American Legion Magazine, the Oregonian, Associated Press, CBS News, Pittsburgh Gazette, NPR All Things Considered, Boston Globe, Air Force Magazine, plus Military.Com and other Internet outlets. Air Force Times and the Springfield Republican both ran editorials insisting VA act in our behalf.

In 2009 Dr. Alvin Young, VA's principal consultant on Agent Orange, had strongly recommended to the USAF the immediate destruction of all C-123s stored in a hazardous material quarantine section of Davis-Mothan Air Force Base because, among other reasons, our already exposed air crews and maintenance veterans might approach the VA seeking care for Agent Orange illnesses. Destruction of the aircraft would help prevent such claims, especially, as it was pointed out, if the aircraft disappeared without public attention. Preventing claims seems to of been awfully important to the VA and so many others. It seemed so important to Dr. Young because in 2011 he denigrated us as "trash haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman." The VA certainly found the right voice to help it oppose our claims – VA had found a man who holds us in contempt to help VA avoid treating our illnesses.

In 2013 Dr. Young was in the middle of his unique VA two year $600,000 no-bid sole source Agent Orange consulting contract. He urged Mr. James Sampsel at the VA Agent Orange desk to "hold the line" (his words) against our claims. For his part, Mr. Sampsel informed his VA colleagues and supervisors that all proof confirming our exposure submitted to VA by independent scientific authorities and other federal agencies (CDC, DOD, USPHS, NIH)  was merely the real "problem" for VA – proof Mr. Sampsel and others in VBA would ignore despite VA regulation VAM21-1MR and despite the Veterans Claims Assistance Act.

Dr. Terry Walters at the VHA Post-Deployment Health Section, told the Associated Press that a line had to be drawn against our claims. Hold the line, indeed!

For too many years the VA "held their line" and denied every single claim submitted by our veterans of the post-Vietnam C-123 spray aircraft. While being paid by VA Dr. Young testified before the Institute of Medicine C-123 committee against our exposure claims. He even attacked the IOM report after its publication in January 2015 using arguments similar to ones used earlier when Dow and Monsanto sponsored him. But the committee saw through that. The committee also criticized VA and USAF for routinely dismissing, ignoring or minimizing  proof of veterans' exposures

In June 2015, the Institute of Medicine report I'm holding in the photo was acted upon by Secretary McDonald. He brought truth, science, law, and compassion into the process at last. The 2100 of us who volunteered to serve our country by flying and maintaining our aircraft willingly accepted the hazards of aviation service and now are acknowledged to have also endured hazardous toxin exposures for which the VA will now care.

As VA Secretary McDonald said to me at the White House, "We won." He meant "We" the veterans and "We" the VA, No longer adversaries.

Let's not let this happen again to other veterans facing toxic exposures.

VA worked & spent $$$ to oppose Institute of Medicine C-123 result

Documents released today under supervision of the US District Court Washington DC provide all the details: VA submitted the C-123 exposure question to the Institute of Medicine for evaluation, but then worked behind the scenes to insure the IOM gave only the desired conclusion...the conclusion VA staffers felt best met their own policies. Thank God (and IOM staffers,) IOM didn't fall for VA's tricks.

This week, after years of delays and obstruction by VA, hundreds of pages of internal correspondence and emails were released dealing with the C-123 Agent Orange exposure concerns of over 2100 veterans who flew these transports following Vietnam. The aircraft were contaminated, but VA from the beginning took extraordinary steps to prevent exposed veterans from receiving vital medical care and disability compensation.

The efforts seem to date back to 2007, when LtCol Aaron Olmsted's Agent Orange exposure claim was denied by VA on the basis he had no proof his C-123s were the ones actually used in Vietnam for spraying Agent Orange. Records show Olmsted flew hundreds of hours in these aircraft, but VA's legal "duty to assist" was viewed by the Department with disdain.

No effort was made by VA to locate readily available records to confirm Olmsted's assertions, something veterans themselves did with a simple phone call and two days' waiting for results from the Air Force Historical Records Agency. VA could and should have done this in meeting its duty to help the veteran locate records, but their victory over his claim was more important. Even when proof of Olmsted's claims was finally offered the VA, it was ignored by the BVA, by the regional administrator, and by the attorney who opposed Olmsted at the BVA hearing.

In more recent years, VA's tricks included paying its principal consultant while he appeared before the IOM to "defend the VA's science" and most certainly, to oppose the great volumes of science supporting the C-123 veterans. The consultant had been awarded his VA no-bid sole source $600,000 contract, the work product of which focused on obstructing C-123 exposure claims. The contract, and its obvious conflict of interest (or certainly the suggestion of that possibility) was not revealed to the committee by VA or the consultant.

Note also that in 2011 the consultant labeled C-123 veterans with disdain as "trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax free dollar...I have no respect." One senses this profoundly negative attitude even better endeared him to the VA, rather than disqualifying him as it should have from any effect on the health care of these 2100 exposed veterans he dislikes so much.

His 2009 role in having recommended destruction of the stored surplus C-123s as toxic waste and to prevent veterans from learning of the contamination was not discussed with the IOM. It should have been...so many things should have been revealed, both to the veterans and the IOM.

Previously a paid consultant to both Dow and Monsanto in their efforts to fight veterans' claims, and with years as an Air Force officer manning VA's own Agent Orange desk helping prevent such claims, the consultant was the perfect go-to guy for VA's Veterans Benefits Administration and Veterans Health Administration, whose senior staffers personally opposed expanding Agent Orange coverages to anyone.

Records now show that VA coordinated closely with their consultant, who nonetheless insisted he wasn't before the IOM to represent the VA. Not only did VA pay him $600,000 for work including monographs attacking the veterans' claims, but he was under that lucrative VA contract even at the time. IOM's questions to the consultant were answered only after first being passed by the VA to insure they met the Department's policy objectives, before being released to the IOM:

In the following email, the consultant writes the US Air Force and clearly states he is presenting to the IOM C-123 committee "on behalf of Compensation Service and the (VA) Office of Public Health." No, not independent at all, but he was presenting to the IOM as VA's voice:

The VA consultant referred frequently to his many monographs being "peer reviewed." This is highly questionable, as no researcher is permitted to select the reviewers as was done here. Peer review is meant to be a critical challenge to protect the scientific record, not this buddy-stamp from close associates holding identical views. Despite VA's own high standards for scientific research, this was allowed to pass without challenge to its many violations of VA Directive 0005 (Scientific Integrity.)

This attitude persisted into more recent years, as detailed in this week's FOIA results. VA expressly sought to "counter" scientific materials with paid-for input from selected sources, rather than letting science and the IOM proceed independently:

Besides contracting with its preferred "go-to" Agent Orange consultant, Veterans Health Administration also paid Sandia Labs to construct arguments against the many scientific experts whose professional opinions were universally in support of C-123 veterans' exposures;

Veterans have tried to stress the fact that of the dozens of independent scientists and physicians who concluded the veterans were exposed and harmed, none were paid.

VA didn't waste a penny seeking any independent views or opinions which might agree with the veterans' claims, but spent hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars to insure the defeat of those veterans' hope for VA recognition of Agent Orange exposures. Hardly "pro-veteran, non-adversarial, every benefit of the doubt rests with the veterans." 

Rather, we see the firm, steady determination to prevent C-123 veterans' access to medical care by spending VA dollars, bending rules and procedures, creating obstructions, implementing personal policies, and the deception of senior VA executives by staffers by feeding them error-laden memoranda to sign.

VA staff and contractors even tried to deceive IOM and senior VA leadership with data from tests performed on "Patches," the USAF Museum's former Operation Ranch Hand C-123. The contractor stressed a point about "only two areas" being TCDD contaminated. In fact, the testing officials determined that there were two "hot" spots but the majority of the C-123 interior was not contaminated, or was an area not tested for lack of accessibility. Big difference.

A Good Cuppa Joe!

Dow & Monsanto Team Up On New Challenge To Veterans' Agent Orange Claims

The Agent Orange manufacturers aren't content with having poisoned a decade of Vietnam veterans with their deadly herbicide known to contain deadly amounts of dioxin.

Faithfully continuing their profitable anti-veteran campaign first begun in 1961 and reaching now into 2014, Dow and Monsanto again joined forces with the VA in June at the Institute of Medicine's C-123 Agent Orange hearing in Washington, D.C.

Their Objective: Block veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims, by preventing VA medical care and compensation for C-123 post-Vietnam veterans.

Between 1972-1982, these vets flew the Agent Orange spray airplanes for routine cargo and aeromedical evacuation missions, but the crews and maintenance workers didn't realize their aircraft remained contaminated ("heavily contaminated," according to USAF toxicologists.) In 2010, all C-123s were destroyed by the USAF as toxic waste.

Researchers Drs. John Ross and Michael Ginevan presented their error-ridden letter to VA Under Secretary Allison Hickey in January 2013. Sponsored in this disservice to veterans by Dow and Monsanto, these private-sector consultants apparently felt it inappropriate that VA provide care for the C-123 veterans' Agent Orange illnesses.

Ross and Ginevan have frequently sided with the VA and the Agent Orange manufacturers in opposing veterans' disability claims, and nothing is new here. They ignored most proofs the veterans submitted to the VA to substantiate their claims, such as the CDC and NIH findings, and twisted others in their attack.

One particularly glaring deception was their description of Patches (C-123K Tail #362) as not being representative of other Agent Orange spray aircraft. Indeed...the others were likely even more contaminated than Patches because they sprayed Agent Orange more recently than did Patches and their contamination was "fresher."

They found a way to twist another fact into a deception. Dioxin is well-known as a human carcinogen, even acknowledged as such by the VA. Ross and Ginevan attempted to mislead VA into dismissing the dangers of the dioxin remaining on the aircraft. Offered to VA was a pretense that scientists question whether dioxin actually is a carcinogen. Really? From VA's own web page;

"TCDD (the dioxin in Agent Orange) is the most toxic of the toxins, and classified as a human carcinogen by the EPA."

That alone should condemn Ross and Ginevan's letter into the VA's trash heap. But it won't. They played to VA's eager ears. Dow and Monsanto were only too happy to feed VA deceptions to continue their joint defense of Agent Orange.

Compensation & Pension Service Orders ALL C-123 Claims Denied

Assurances from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Senate, and assurances by the Under Secretary for Benefits, that "C-123 veterans' claims will be considered on a case-by-case" basis have proved to be empty promises.

Every veteran has the right to have a disability claim considered on the merits of the situation, and not dismissed by some broad pronouncement of a VA official's personal agenda. Falsely, C-123 veterans are assured on VA web pages that our Agent Orange exposure claims will be evaluated on the facts and the law.

But in four separate situations VA has clearly demonstrated how they denied us due process, and blocked medical care needed by our veterans. We claim protection under the Due Process Clause because we've established that we are veterans, that we have Agent Orange-recognized illnesses and we have a large body of evidence to persuade. At this point, according to Cushing and other decisions, Due Process applies!

1. In 2012 the VA's Agent Orange consultant summarized the perspective of Compensation and Pension in his report, "Investigations into the Allegations of Agent Orange/Dioxin Exposure from Former Ranch Hand Aircraft." On page 25 he confirms VA's decision to order all C-123 claims denied, writing, "The Compensation Service recommended that such claims associated with Agent Orange exposure be denied service-connection." Then he reveals the contradiction VA created by concluding that paragraph with VA's own empty promise, "Veterans who believe they have exposure- related health problems may file a claim for disability compensation. These claims will be decided on a “case-by-case basis”  These statements are at opposite ends of the logic spectrum.

2. The VA arranged to have post-Vietnam Agent Orange issues reviewed by a contractor (Contract VA-101-12-C-0006.) That contractor was already of the firm opinion that our claims for service connection were without merit. In 2011 he described those of us seeking VA medical care as "trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman."
His contempt for us was reflected in the effort he and VA spent, with his unique sole-source no-bid $600,000 contract resulting in four separate reports attacking the basis of our claims, plus his appearance before the Institute of Medicine on June 16 to detail the VA's basis for refusing our claims. Nothing wrong with him getting business wherever he may find it, but completely inappropriate for VA to use this particular prejudiced individual's services against us.
All six major veterans service organizations have complained to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, objecting to the relationship between VA and this contractor.
The contractor is welcome to his business wherever he can find it, and he certainly has an unequaled historical grasp of Agent Orange issues. His previously-expressed distain for C-123 veterans, however, makes his input completely unacceptable as regards our VA health care.

3. As shown in VA training materials released via our lawsuit to enforce Freedom of Information Act requests, Veterans Health Administration instructs claims officials that no amount of scientific information supporting C-123 veterans' exposure claims will be permitted to weigh against VHA's decision that it is insufficient. Dozens of experts from other federal agencies, universities, medical schools, schools of public health and state governments agree that C-123 veterans have been exposed and harmed...but VA prefers the opinions of its Agent Orange contractor and the two scientists sponsored by Dow and Monsanto.

4. BVA attorneys have been successful fighting Agent Orange appeals by somehow convincing the administrative law judges that VA regulations forbid recognizing exposure claims other than Vietnam, Korean DMZ, certain Blue Water ships and Thai base perimieter. Statements like the following, used by BVA attorneys to keep veterans out of VA hospitals, are just plain false!

 "Citation Nr: 1413377: there are no studies that VA is aware of showing harmful health effects for any such secondary or remote herbicide contact that may have occurred."

"Citation Nr: 1337387: note, the Department of Veterans Affairs did address residual Agent Orange exposure concerns by post-Vietnam crews that later flew C-123 aircraft that had previously sprayed Agent Orange.  VA's Office of Public Health is noted to have thoroughly reviewed all available scientific information regarding the exposure potential to residual amounts of herbicides on the C-123 aircraft surfaces.  It was concluded that the potential exposure for the post-Vietnam crews that flew or maintained the aircraft was extremely low and therefore it was concluded that the risk of long-term health effects was minimal.  (See www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange.)  Otherwise, other than his unsubstantiated allegations, there simply is no evidence that the Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides based on his contact with any military vehicle that may have once been used in Vietnam 

Our Blog – Disrespectful? Let's Hope Not!

 Carter Blog: "Truth cannot be found, only exaggeration, misinformation and propaganda?"   

Having been challenged to do so, I'm thinking through my blog perspective and re-reading the entries. A suggestion was made that I'd not had respectful comments regarding one individual, perhaps even more.

Obviously we have a pro-veteran perspective here, trying to argue the eligibility of post-Vietnam C-123 veterans' VA Agent Orange exposure benefits. The VA, its consultant, both Dow and Monsanto, and perhaps other veterans with different views argue otherwise...and that's the perfect system for civil discourse. We believe we're right, as do so many scientists, physicians, legal scholars and other agencies who've spoken up for us.

Our opponents have the advantage of experience, unrestricted access to VA and AF documentation, greater scientific understanding, federal funding, the opportunity to carefully word the charge to the IOM, and the final decision-making authority.

We do not argue any science, not having the qualifications for that, but we do try to put forward the various ways in which we believe ourselves eligible through the opinions of others such as the CDC/ATSDR and NIH. At time, this means that we say our opponents are wrong on an issue, or fail to interpret issues in a pro-veteran, pro-claimant manner as required by law,  or seek to implement unofficial policy or personal agendas rather than help us.

Each side has stated its objectives. VA: "We cannot permit any C-123 claims." (VHA.) And, "C-123 veterans have been subjected to long-term/low intensity AO exposure and are due care for Agent Orange-recognized illnesses." (Wes Carter.)

So once again, I'll ask for comments, corrections, anything. If I have erred in facts, I'd like to correct those facts because otherwise the value of our entire effort is diminished. If I have erred in a more subtle way, perhaps over-emphasis or sarcasm, I welcome suggestions for improvement there as well.

The fact does remain, however, that VA and its consultant actively oppose every argument we put forward. We have never had a helping hand offered us, other than three quite polite conferences at which we were told none of our claims would ever be approved. Great sums have been spent by VA to insure our claims remain denied and to influence the IOM report. Our requests for VA assistance in research are all denied, and VA even recently reserved the right to redefine "exposure" to prevent exposure claims such as ours.

Of course, VA personnel and their contractor have always been very courteous, but courtesy does not make up for locking VA hospital doors against us.

We've been asked by VA's contractor, what's our agenda? Simple...we'd like our illnesses associated with Agent Orange exposure to be treated. Until such time as the law changes, we're eligible for this care and the decision to withhold it is wrong.

I trust this entry, at least, is not "exaggeration, misinformation or propaganda."

Monsanto Safety Warning About Agent Orange (2,3,5-T)

This is the extent of what Monsanto provided as a safety warning for the use of 2,4,5-T, famously better known as Agent Orange. Notice...not a word about personal safety, just how to protect other plants...Monsanto wouldn't want to be blamed for any wilted roses, but they don't mind poisoning generations of veterans!

Current Status - Institute of Medicine C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Committee

Actually, the full name just doesn't quite flow off the tongue, nor is it easily typed...I always have to look it up: Committee to Evaluate the Potential Exposure to Agent Orange/TCDD Residue and Level of Risk Adverse Health Effects for Aircrew of Post-Vietnam C-123 Aircraft."

They've been meeting and working very hard since the spring and apparently are about finished with their draft copy, according to the cryptic summation of the recent committee teleconferences. Once the draft is complete, it begins another process before reaching the Secretary of Veterans Affairs:

• Prior to release, report is reviewed by individuals who are not involved in authoring the report and whose names are not revealed to the committee or the study director during review.
• Reviewers are selected by the major unit responsible for the project, in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences’ Report Review Committee.
• The review is overseen by a review monitor and/or coordinator.
• Each committee must respond to, but need not agree with, reviewer comments in a detailed “response to review” that is examined by the monitor and/or coordinator, who ensure that the report review criteria have been satisfied.
• The report may not be released to sponsor or the public until the chair of the Report Review Committee (or designee) signifies that the review process has been satisfactorily completed.
• The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be given an opportunity to suggest changes in the report.
• The names and affiliations of the report reviewers will be made public when the report is released.

The second bullet could be fatal: VA, as the "major unit responsible" will select reviewers already determined to prevent C-123 exposure claims, so whatever pro-C-123 exposure conclusions will be severely challenged, and whatever anti-C-123 exposure conclusions will be amplified. So whatever the committee itself recommends will be amended in some way at this point to a position more acceptable to the VA's Post Deployment Health Section. And you can bet they've already got their reviewers picked out! Only when its released and too late to be challenged, are the reviewers identified and in any case, nobody sees the committee's draft, or original version.

Remember: VA did not refer this to the IOM because there is any scientific question that we've been exposed. They referred it, and worded the charge to the committee, to create a basis for continuing to deny all C-123 exposure claims even though each C-123 veteran with an Agent Orange-recognized illness is presently legally entitled to presumptive service connection.

A strong point still in our favor is a fundamental IOM rule: In reaching consensus about an association between exposure and health effects, the Committee considers only peer-reviewed, published scientific literature. The committee also realizes that this group of veterans was never tested at any time for dioxin, and that VA rules for the Agent Orange registry actually prohibit such tests.

The committee realizes that our C-123s are unique in that they were tested to be contaminated – "highly contaminated," in the words of the toxicologists, long after we'd retired them to storage. No other such situation...boats, ships, tanks, trucks, helicopters...was ever determined to be contaminated as were our C-123s. "A danger to public health" as AF toxicologists offered in sworn testimony in 2000. And then, all aircraft destroyed as toxic waste, with special note made for this to be done because exposed vets would seek their exposure benefits.

The material gathered by the VA for IOM, including from its $300,000/year Agent Orange consultant and the Dow/Monsanto sponsored letters, was never peer reviewed. Of course, many other documents submitted to the IOM by the VA and the veterans weren't peer-reviewed, either.

And the only peer-reviewed scientific literature available which directly addressed the situation was Lurker, et. al. "Post-Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC-123K Agent Orange Spray Aircraft."

The committee is doing what it has to. We asked them also to exercise their independence and address the yes/no question of exposure.

We'll wait and hope for the best.We'll look forward with great hope to the end of September or, if delayed, maybe sometime in October bringing us the IOM report.

VA Misled Senate on C-123 Agent Orange Exposure – Hid Behind Dow & Monsanto Money

VA deceived the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, C-123 veterans and the American public.

That's about all of us. With just a little word-smithing, what a twisted account VA provided when asked by Senator Burr (Ranking Member Senate Veterans Affairs) about C-123 Agent Orange exposures. It took VA only a few well-chosen words to complete their deception

In April 2013 Senator Burr wrote Secretary Shinseki about growing concerns over VA mistreatment of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims, none of which were permitted to be approved. The  VA Secretary responded with a cover letter and a detailed "Fact Sheet" with assurances that all was being done correctly. The Secretary further countered Senator Burrs questions about a report submitted by "Concerned Scientists and Physicians" which detailed scientific justifications for the veterans claims with a VA-produced "Fact Sheet."

The "Fact Sheet" stressed how "several other scientists, independently and without solicitation, contacted VA to refute the aforementioned opinions." Note the words: independently, and without solicitation.

There's the news. There's the deception.

Because, despite the Secretary's description of them, the "other scientists, independently and without solicitation" were all but that. From documents released by VA in June 2014 at the Institute of Medicine, two of the "independent" scientists were sponsored by Dow and Monsanto and the other, consultants, had been under contract by VA for $300,000 per year, hardly independent nor without solicitation

The VA also reversed their descriptions of the scientists: over 20 physicians and scientists spoke out against VA's C-123 position as part of "Concerned Scientists and Physicians", which VA described to Senator Burr as "some scientists."

Then, VA also reversed the facts again, taking the three scientists (all paid for their historical opposition) who disagreed with the veterans and describing them as "several." Yes, perhaps three could be called several, but that's a stretch...a deceptive one.

I don't for a second believe General Shinseki himself created this deception last year! Of course not! But...staffers did. Staffers in VA with an agenda of preventing C-123 claims. Staffers with an agenda of insuring contractors are well-paid. VA staffers who know that they know best...preventing exposure claims! Staffers who broke faith with their boss and their veterans as well

Monsanto & Dow Sponsor New Challenges to Veterans' Exposure Claims

Two scientists sponsored by Dow Chemical and Monsanto, the manufacturers of Agent Orange, recently submitted challenges through the Department of Veterans Affairs to an article published in Environmental Research. The peer-reviewed article which Dow and Monsanto challenged reviewed military tests from 1979 through 2009 and concluded C-123 veterans were exposed. This did not sit well with either the VA or the chemical manufacturers.

Given their sponsors, it is no surprise that the Dow and Monsanto challengers eagerly concluded veterans who flew C-123 transports in the decade after Vietnam were unlikely to have been exposed to deadly dioxin.

What upset them was the article from April's Environmental Research by Drs. Peter Lurker, Jeanne Stellman, Richard Clapp and Fred Berman, titled "Post-Vietnam military herbicide exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange spray aircraft." Before publication, the article was reviewed by a critical panel of experts for scientific accuracy, to be accepted as part of the body of scientific literature. Dow and Monsanto's challenge, on the other hand, was a simple letter to the editor, lacking scientific standing.

The transports' spray tanks were removed after the war. Dioxin is a contaminant of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Many of the veterans' fleet of C-123, were tested repeatedly between 1979-2009 and the lingering dioxin contamination verified in seventeen C-123s. Tests were performed by Air Force and civilian toxicologists. All the planes were retired from service in 1982, and stored in desert HAZMAT quarantine.

After 27 years in quarantine, and concerned about a threatened EPA $3.4 billion fine for illegal HAZMAT storage, the Air Force approved destruction of the toxic aircraft. All were shredded and smelted, and certified as destroyed by Air Force experts, in June of 2010.

Dow and Monsanto's challenge of the Environmental Research's article was needed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Traditionally, VA has opposed all efforts by veterans to qualify for exposure benefits, a record of intransigence that compelled Congress to enact the 1991 Agent Orange Act and its supporting legal regulations. VA welcomed the effort by Dow and Monsanto, the better to challenge C-123 veterans' claims for Agent Orange benefits. Which is why Congress enacted the 1991 Agent Orange Act.

VA provided the Dow/Monsanto letter to the Institute of Medicine by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which released the scientists' challenge along with some 80 other documents. Unlike the Dow and Monsanto contractors, Lurker et. al. were uncompensated for their research, motivated by their desire to evaluate veterans' exposure experiences aboard the C-123s.

No effort was made, no money was spent, by the Department of Veterans Affairs to sponsor research which would support the C-123 veterans' exposure claims, but several contracts were issued to pay selected consultants to write a series challenges to veterans' claims. Post Deployment Health immediately denied any Agent Orange exposure when C-123 veterans first approached with the question in 2011, and ever effort by VA since then has been to block all evidence which supports veterans claims.

Dow and Monsanto Issue New Defenses of Agent Orange

In papers recently released by the Department of Veterans Affairs (although earlier withheld against Freedom of Information Act requests by stating no such documentation exists,) an article was identified as authored by scientists sponsored by Dow and Monsanto, the wartime manufacturers of Agent Orange. Veterans might recall that Dow and Monsanto are quite defensive when questions arise about their role spreading the toxin worldwide, and their money continues to be spread about to defend themselves.

Authors Ginevan and Ross were retained to focus on the Stellman finding which confirms the C-123 veterans' exposure, and the subsequent Committee of Concerned Scientists and Physicians letter reaching the same conclusion. The chemical firms' writers attack the science used by the independent and unpaid experts...unsuccessfully!

The only news here is that Dow and Monsanto are still spending money whenever and wherever
they can challenge any veterans' hopes of receiving VA medical care for Agent Orange illnesses.