Scientists & Physicians Speak Out in Support of C-123 Veterans!

Dr. Stellman

Today, we were informed by Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emerita at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, that ten scientists and five physicians joined forces and submitted their joint letter to the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Allison Hickey.

These eminent scientists and physicians spoke out in support of C-123 veterans' claims for Agent Orange exposure. The VA has spent this last year defying science, law, logic and justice in an effort to prevent C-123 veterans from making any claims for medical care for the Agent Orange exposure while flying and maintaining our airplanes which all government tests agree, were "highly contaminated" and "a danger to public health." The scientists and physicians who authored their joint letter aim to set right the VA on this issue! The letter should be a game-changer in our struggles with VA administrators.

Unlike the VA whose staff toxicologists were assigned the paid duty of creating arguments against veterans' claims, these independent scientists and physicians took time from their busy professional schedules, without compensation, and evaluated all the evidence and then put forth their views confirming the C-123 veterans' exposure and eligibility under law for Agent Orange service connection. We are fortunate that they have General Hickey to receive their letters, given her Air Force background as an aircraft commander before becoming Under Secretary for Veterans Benefits. Naturally, VA will immediately dismiss this letter using whatever spurious "reasons" that come to mind, whether or not such reasons are legal, just, or scientific.

What can we say to these independent experts except thank you. The scientists and physicians have asked that their names and institutions or federal agencies remain nameless except in the original letter sent General Hickey, but we know who many of them are likely to be. Our thanks. Our very profound thanks, especially to leaders in the effort like Dr. Stellman and others who've asked their involvement be confidential and thus objective, as is the standard in their profession. Thank you all for stepping forward to help us, just as our veterans stepped forward to serve in the military, flying these airplanes that left us exposed to deadly TCDD.

God Bless them from each of us!

     Wes

-cover letter to joint letter submitted to Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Hickey:

(text of scientists' and physicians' letter, on a major university's letterhead)

November 29, 2012

Brigadier General Allison Hickey USAF (retired)Undersecretary for Benefits

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

Dear Secretary Hickey,

We have been asked by Major Wesley T. Carter USAF (retired) to comment on the October 12 letter in which you state that "VA is unable to extend the presumption of Agent Orange exposure to crew members of post-Vietnam C-123s or acknowledge Agent Orange-related disabilities as a result of this service." You based this statement on information provided to you by the VA Office of Public Health. We have carefully examined that Office's"Scientific Review of Agent Orange in C-123 Aircraft,"[1] and find it seriously flawed. We feel obliged to point out the scientific shortcomings in the VA appraisal and hope that you take our comments into consideration in any future decision-making with respect to post-Vietnam exposures in the C-123s.

In your letter you state that "the potential for exposure to dioxin from flying or working in contaminated C-123aircraft years after use in Vietnam, is unlikely to have occurred at levels that could affect health" and you base your statement on the VA Public Health Office conclusion that any dioxin present would be "biologically unavailable."Unfortunately, the Public Health Office, in turn, bases its conclusion on several erroneous assumptions about routesof entry of dioxin to the body, as well as other scientific misapprehensions.

The VA seems to dismiss skin absorption ("the skin would act as a barrier prohibiting further penetration of TCDD"). This is incorrect. Skin absorption is a primary occupational route of exposure for dioxin-contaminatedpesticides. Both the Air Force and Army technical assessments use a dermal absorption model,[2][3] as do numerous other agencies and authorities. When the Air Force applied its skin absorption model to a 2009 assessment of contamination of the C-123s prior to their disposal, it found average concentrations in two of the aircraft to be"statistically near the risk-based screening level for dioxins/furans, based on a one-year industrial exposure scenario" (page 20). (A one-year industrial exposure scenario is probably reasonable for C-123 crew and maintenance personnel in the 1970's.) Please note that these measurements were taken nearly 40 years after sprayingended, and certainly represent a lower level than would have been present in the 1970s.

The levels measured in another Air Force assessment of the C-123s, in 1994,[4] were significantly in excess of the screening levels proposed by the Army for office workers. The Army office worker exposure scenario provides forfar less opportunity for dermal contact than would have been likely for C-123 crew and maintenance personnel. Even with this very conservative exposure model, officials from ATSDR calculated "an average value of 6.36ng/l00cm2 for the three C-123 interior wipe samples collected on November 20, 1994", an average value that"exceeds the Army screening level by 182 times and is equivalent to a 200-fold greater cancer-risk than thescreening value."[5] The 2009 Air Force reference levels would similarly have been exceeded.

There are additional difficulties with the VA's scientific appraisal. For example, the VA proposes, "Once TCDD dries on hard surfaces, such as on an aircraft, it does not readily cross through human skin." By contrast, Army technical guidance is specifically formulated for dioxin that is characterized as "dried-on surface" (p. 63). The VAminimizes the possibility of skin absorption "especially given that the sampling for TCDD on the aircraft surfaces required use of a solvent (hexane) to displace and dissolve any residue." Hexane-based wipe sampling is standard procedure. The VA seems to deride the notion of occupational exposure because "sophisticated laboratory techniques many years after its use" were used to detect dioxin. Dioxin is a tricky substance to measure and only expensive and sophisticated techniques are available for its detection.

We also think it important to note, as you do in your letter, "the 1991 Agent Orange Act ... provides a presumption of herbicide exposure" (emphasis added). This means exposure to 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, picloram and dimethyl arsenicacid (another carcinogen), not just the notorious Agent Orange contaminant, TCDD (dioxin), are covered by the Act. Airborne phenoxyherbicides were measured in air samples taken in the C-123 aircraft in 1979, albeit at levels below the occupational exposure limits.[6] It is difficult to extrapolate exposure levels back to 1972 because of an absence of data on applicable environmental temperatures and pressures, but it should be noted that there exists the likelihood of exposures to multiple environmental toxins in the C-123s, in addition to dioxin, and such multiple exposures generally require application of more conservative scenarios.

We hope that this letter may assist you in reconsidering your conclusion with regard to presumption of herbicide exposure for post-war C-123 crew and maintenance personnel. We would be particularly interested in learning the specific criteria used for determining that exposures to the dioxins were "unlikely to have occurred at levels that could affect health," since screening levels appear to have been exceeded and no safe level of dioxin exposure has asyet been agreed upon by regulatory authorities.

Please let us know if we may be of further assistance to you in your considerations. 

Sincerely,

[SIGNATORY LIST ATTACHED - confidential per their request]

[1] http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/scientific-review-residue-c123.asp

[2]"Dioxin and Herbicide Characterization of UC-123K Aircraft – Phase I." Prepared for Director of Operations,

505 Aircraft Sustainment Squadron and Hazardous Waste Program Manager, 75CEG/CEVC, Hill AFB, UT(prepared by Select Engineering Services, Layton, UT); 2009.(http://foundationforworkerhealth.wikischolars.columbia.edu/file/view/Reference+2_Hill+AFB_2009.pdf )

[3]Technical Guide 312 -Health Risk Assessment Methods and Screening Levels for Evaluating Office WorkerExposures to Contaminants on Indoor Surfaces Using Surface Wipe Data (June 2009). (http://foundationforworkerhealth.wikischolars.columbia.edu/file/view/Reference+3_TG+312+%28Health+Risk+Assessment+Methods+and+Screening+Levels+for+Evaluating+Office+Worker+Exposures.pdf )

[4]Consultative Letter from Capt Wade Weisman & Ronald Porter; Department of Air Force Armstrong LaboratoryMemorandum FOR 645 MedGrp/SGB Dated 19 Dec 94. (http://foundationforworkerhealth.wikischolars.columbia.edu/file/view/reference+4_Weisman_Porter_1994.pdf )

[5] Letter from Thomas Sinks, PhD, Deputy Director ATSDR to Maj. Wesley Carter (ret), Jan. 25, 2012. (http://foundationforworkerhealth.wikischolars.columbia.edu/file/view/reference+5_A TSDR+Letter+25+Jan+12.pdf)

[6]Conway, William, September 1979, Aircraft Sampling Westover AFB, MA, USAF OEHL Technical Report 79-59. ( http://foundationforworkerhealth.wikischolars.columbia.edu/file/view/reference+6_Conway_1979.pdf )

C-123 Veterans: "Trash haulers, freeloaders" according to DOD official

"TRASH HAULERS, FREELOADERS

 looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman." "I have no respect."

These are the comments, made in an email released earlier this year, by Dr. Al Young. Anyone is welcome to opinions, even if as offensive as this man's, but what makes this absolutely devastating to C-123 veterans is that Dr. Young is the consultant to the Secretary of Defense, and he recommended destruction of the dioxin-contaminated aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan AFB in part, out of concern veterans might learn learn about the contamination and seek VA "presumptive compensation."

The Result: Contempt for C-123 veterans has played a tragic role in preventing access to vital medical care. Another result: VA honored with award of an unsolicited no-bid sole-source two year consulting contract bringing him $600,000 with his VBA contact Mr. James Sampsel from the Compensation and Pension Service. 

Can we assume that VA did not select this particular contractor based on any opinion he held favoring veterans' exposure claims?

The consultant allowed that he had some respect for holders of the Purple Heart and those who'd been in combat. In his contempt, Dr. Young failed to note that a large percentage of C-123 veterans are combat veterans of Vietnam, the Gulf War and other conflicts. Often, many such conflicts, as with the late Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Olmsted. And we C-123 vets wear wings, parachute jump badges, DFCs, Purple Hearts,  POW Medals, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars and other hard-earned decorations as well. Colonel Charlie Brown...a freeloader? General Mike Walker? Master Sergeant George Gadbois?

These offensive comments in an email made public earlier this year in which he was referencing C-123 veterans who might learn the C-123 Agent Orange contamination and who would naturally seek medical care from the VA for Agent Orange illnesses. 

The Deeper Problem: How in the world was anyone able to encourage government officials at Davis-Monthan AFB, Hill AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB and the Air Staff itself to conduct the C-123 destruction project with special efforts to minimize publicity to keep the press and veterans from learning about such a controversial event?

This calls for an IG investigation of the destruction of the retired fleet of C-123 transports, and into the complete failure of Air Force Public Affairs to meet its mission of informing the public!

A Possible Opening? Newest VA C-123 Agent Orange Bulletin!

In their most recent Agent Orange bulletin on 21 November 2012, the VA included a remarkable statement affecting all C-123 veterans. The inference is that we need only show the same level of evidence or proof as Thailand and other veterans to be considered.

"Eligibility for Veterans outside of Vietnam or Korea

Veterans who do not meet the criteria for presumed exposure to Agent Orange may be eligible for service-connection for related disabilities. This includes:

• Blue Water Veterans
 who served on ships off the shore of Vietnam that did not operate on the inland waterways of Vietnam, or who did not set foot in Vietnam. Check VA's list of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships that operated in Vietnam.

• Veterans who served on or near the perimeters of military bases in Thailand during the Vietnam Era

• Veterans who served where herbicides were tested and stored outside of Vietnam

• Veterans who were crew members on C-123 planes flown after the Vietnam War

These Veterans must show that they were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service to be eligible for service-connection for presumptive diseases related to Agent Orange exposure."

Could this be the shining light we've been looking for?  This is the first time the VA has actually stated that C-123 veterans can be eligible if we show our exposure to Agent Orange, and in which they have included us with certain Blue Water Navy and Thailand veterans.

Veterans Last to know! Timeline of the C-123 Agent Orange Deception

History of the C-123 Agent Orange Contamination 

1972-1982...C-123 warplanes' continued service after Vietnam Agent Orange spray missions (1961-1971).

1978...First known C-123 veteran's Agent Orange illnesses surfaced (peripheral neuropathy) but not understood to be caused by Agent Orange at the time.

1979...Military herbicide residue was first confirmed to contaminate C-123 aircraft.

1983...First C-123 Agent Orange death (MSgt Robert Boyd, ischemic heart disease).

Smelting C-123 (USAF photo)

1994...Agent Orange contamination of C-123 warplanes became known to officials in the Air Force. Decision made not to inform exposed C-123 veterans.

1996...Air Force JAG directed all Agent Orange contamination in the C-123 be "kept in official channels only."

2010...All remaining C-123 warplanes destroyed as "toxic waste" with special measures to minimize publicity.

2011...Using Freedom of Information Act veterans uncover details confirming C-123 Agent Orange contamination.

2011...Office of Secretary of Defense privately slurs C-123 veterans as "trash haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar from sympathetic congressmen."

2012...Veterans Administration official notifies C-123 veterans Agent Orange isn't actually harmful, so there was no exposure to any C-123 veteran, and VA will bar all C-123 veterans from all medical care for Agent Orange illnesses.

Another Federal Agency Endorses ATSDR C-123 Dioxin Report

Earlier this year the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health was asked to investigate the C-123 aircrew dioxin exposure issue, specifically to conduct their NIOSH health hazard evaluation. Their response was received yesterday.

Dr. Allison Tepper, Chief of the Health Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, concluded that her agency "defers to Dr. Sinks and the expertise within the NCEH/ATSDR." She is referring to the finding offered earlier in 2012 by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in which Dr. Sinks, Deputy Director, concluded that the C-123 aircraft were contaminated and that aircrews were most likely exposed.

As with every other dioxin exposure situation, especially individuals whose exposure is addressed decades after contact with dioxin, the ATSDR reminds "The information available is insufficient to establish with accuracy the degree of exposure (high or low) or the risk of adverse health effects." This reservation in Dr. Sinks' conclusion in no way minimizes the conclusion that veterans were exposed but merely states that even once exposed as we were, too much time has passed and all the aircraft have since been destroyed, so there is no opportunity to "fine tune" the veterans' exposure assessment for those years we flew the C-123.

Only the VA has come to dispute the ATSDR finding. Only the VA has come to dispute law, reason and justice in their mindless opposition to our veterans' claims for Agent Orange exposure medical care.  Only the VA wants to prevent veterans access to medical care. Only the VA ignores scientific input when even the Agent Orange Act of 1991 requires the Secretary to evaluate both medical AND scientific evidence. Only the VA, in their effort to twist logic and science, has concluded "There is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects." Boy, that one sentence says it all about the VA attitude!

We are grateful that NIOSH is behind ATSDR in helping make the case for service connection for our veterans!

On another issue, we submitted a fairly comprehensive Freedom of Information Act request to the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine regarding their C-123 exposure assessment. It was approved to be fee-free, but yesterday we learned it is delayed because of difficulty gathering all the materials requested. The anticipated release date is now 8 Jan 2013.

Thanks, Portland VA Medical Center

Typical VA Doctor

Two Sundays ago I was ill after church and went directly to the ER at Portland's VA hospital. I was quickly seen by a resident, X-rays taken and then I was quickly admitted. The problem was a massive infection of a total hip replacement I'd received in August. I went to the VA after waiting two hours at another hospital ER without being seen, but the Portland VA hospital had me in an examining room within 20 minutes!

After 20 years of being 100% disabled, this happened to be my first overnight experience as a VA in-patient. Everyone was extremely kind and highly skilled.  Because I was going to face surgery at some point, I wasn't able to eat or drink so I can't comment on the food service, but it probably was quite good also.

My sincere thanks to the VA ER staff, Imaging Services, Orthopedics and the kind docs and nurses on the 5th floor in Portland. My operation to address the deep hip infection, done later at Oregon Health Sciences University Hospital, went well, I was released after eight days, and I'm now "enjoying" my third hip, with 40 days of IV therapy still to follow.

USAF C-123 Report Disputed! Key Evidence Reexamined!

USAFSAM C-123 Report

The May 2012 USAF School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) C-123 report, completed after several months of C-123 literature review and focused on the Agent Orange contamination so much of concern to veterans, has several fatal flaws.

Basically the report failed to confirm whether the C-123 contamination left veterans exposed. For some reason and without further foundation, the report then went on to state veterans were very unlikely to have been exposed.

Veterans who've been insisting we were exposed aboard the C-123 were quick to note that the report tried to focus on the 1994 Porter/Weisman toxicological survey of Tail #362 (Patches) at the Air Force Museum which the veterans had held up as proof of our exposure. That survey seemed quite clear - "heavily contaminated on all surfaces." The survey also directed that all personnel wear HAZMAT protection, so severe was the threat of dioxin exposure. These points and others seemed, to the veterans, adequate proof that Patches and the other C-123s were contaminated. These points were adequate proof that, since we flew in NOMEX flight suits and not HAZMAT protection from the dioxin,  we were in fact exposed.

Not so, said the report. In a twisted effort to prevent allowing the veterans to claim exposure, the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine insisted that Weisman/Porter applied to museum restoration workers only. USAFSAM insisted that the tasks of museum restoration workers could lead to dioxin exposure but somehow - the work of aerial port, maintenance and aircrew wouldn't.

So, the veterans looked at the kind of work done by restoration workers, and even sought advice about such activities from experts at the Museum of the United States Air Force and restoration workers at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville Oregon, home of the famous Spruce Goose and dozens of other aircraft.

But the tasks are virtually identical! Grinding, loading, unloading, painting, welding, scraping, corrosion control. assembly, disassembly, and so forth. The veterans did many more activities, all of which further exposed them to the C-123 dioxin residue. In fact, the Porter/Weisman report clearly proves that veterans were exposed! And remember - veterans were exposed much longer than restoration workers who finished their tasks quickly, and veterans were exposed to dioxin which was far "fresher" during our decade of flight than in 1994 when Porter/Weisman was completed. Several senior NCOs and officers provided sworn statements that effect.

The questions must arise - why was the USAFSAM report seemingly so thorough, yet so flawed?

 1. The first obvious answer is that the Air Force, having discovered a situation in 1994 concerning exposure of veterans 1972-1982, had failed to inform the veterans we'd been exposed. Instead, in 1996 and just two years after the Museum survey, the Air Force Office of Environmental Law directed all information about C-123 Agent Orange contamination be kept "in official channels only, 

2. The second answer is that some C-123s had already been sold to Walt Disney Films, and the Air Force would have been embarrassed with that becoming widely known. 

3. The third answer is that many contaminated C-123s had been sold by the Air Force Security Assistance Center to Thailand and South Korea, thus potential embarrassment  to the USAF and the State Department.  Contemporary memos stressed the political implications and the need to minimize publicity about the contamination.

4. The USAF and Office of Secretary of Defense were sensitive to the public concern raised by an article by Prof Ben Quick which addressed the C-123 contamination.  The USAF and Office of Secretary of Defense corresponded frequently about the need to destroy the stored C-123s and do do so quietly, with carefully worded press releases in the event the destruction became known, because C-123 veterans might learn about their exposure and seek VA benefits. It is highly inappropriate for the government to take any such action which would in any way keep veterans from seeking VA service-connected medical care. The words "cover up" come to mind but clumsy would be a better description of the secret C-123 destruction issue.

 5.  Learning of the C-123 dioxin contamination, the USAF acted to cancel private sales but already planes had been sold. Dr. Ron Porter, a USAF toxicology expert had to testify in a federal court to confirm the "hazardous" surfaces and the need for personnel to wear HAZMAT protection in the USAF Museum. Dr. Ron Porter testified under oath confirming the dioxin contamination of the C-123 was, as per his Porter/Weisman survey, hazardous to the public. He made no reference as to his survey applying only to USAF museum staff.

6.  The USAFSAM C-123 report report failed to reference many current documents and opinions, such as from Dr. Jeanie Stellman, Dr. Ron Porter, Dr. Joe Goeppner and others. The  USAFSAM report cited, in several cases, research reports over thirty years old.

7. In an incredulous statement, USAFSAM reported that, even if the C-123 was contaminated, veterans weren't likely to be exposed. That statement is doubly-flawed. In all previous situations government agencies have basically concluded that measurable contamination equals exposure via one or more of the exposure pathways (ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact). In this report, however, USAF implies a point above which exposure occurs and at that point and below, no harm results from that exposure. The statement is further flawed in concluding veterans weren't exposed, and fails to weigh properly the Army TG312 and the CDC/ATSDR findings that the aircraft contamination of dioxin exceeded both US domestic as well as international standards. The C-123 was also contaminated past the safe reentry standards set by the State of New York, relied on throughout all levels of government as a "gold standard."

Back in for ANOTHER new hip

I got a new right hip in August and was scheduled for the left next week. On Sunday after church, however, I ended up back in the hospital again when the first hip suddenly became infected. So, in a couple  hours in I go for the hip to be drained and cleaned, and the first components replaced.

Bummer! Double-bummer as it sets back the second hip replacement by months, and that means months more of pretty intense discomfort.

Hey...it is what it is. so I'll just weather this somehow.

VA Announces Agent Orange Now Harmless! Truly A Miracle!

That's right, boys and girls. Harmless! A VA Miracle! Faced with otherwise convincing proof that the Air Force C-123 transport was certainly contaminated with dioxin, the Veterans Administration Compensation Service resolved the health problems of the exposed aircrew veterans (and kept the VA budget in close check) in a perfectly simple maneouver - dioxin has been redefined by VA as harmless to human health, effective 25 September 2012 and all it took was a simple letter.  Why didn't they think of this earlier?

Still, I'm concerned that this VA miracle managerial decision in the face of science, logic, law and justice will somehow not relieve the worries of 1560 aircrew, maintenance and aerial port veterans who flew the C-123 between the years 1972-1982. The C-123 was the transport used for spraying Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and in April 2011 veterans learned that the airplanes remained "heavily contaminated" and "a danger to public health" after the war while flown by the Air Force Reserve.

The C-123 veterans' struggle with the VA began in April 2011. The VA quickly hit back with official arguments that, although the airplanes were contaminated, veterans couldn't have been exposed therein. VA also created a new concept called "dry dioxin transfer" to help prevent all valid claims, using that unscientific idea to explain away how veterans could have worked in close contact with the toxin without any harm.

But their 25 September announcement about TCDD being harmless does an even more perfect job and completes the full-circle argument of preventing dioxin-exposed veterans access to medical care:

1. veterans couldn't have been exposed aboard the C-123, because the VA says so.
2. even if veterans were exposed, "dry dioxin transfer" meant that kind of exposure wouldn't have harmed them. In the C-123, dioxin was somehow safe to be around for the decade we flew it.
3. and finally, even if veterans were exposed via the typical paths of exposure (dermal, ingestion, inhalation) no harm could come to them because, quoting the new rule...dioxin is harmless anyway! 

Don't worry....be happy! VA has decided that science and medicine had it wrong all along, especially those pesky independent scientists who helped prepare the Institute on Medicine reports on Agent Orange. 

Golly, the Department of Veterans Affairs should have saved a lot of money from the very beginning by simply creating their "harmless" statement at the beginning of American's concern about this, the most toxic of all substances and a known human carcinogen. The Department of Veterans Affairs should have kept veterans from a lot of worry about our exposure by posting their simple decree which explained "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."

The source of this marvelous news about Agent Orange not being responsible for our cancers, diabetes, perhiperial neuropathy, and other diseases is the VA's Director, Compensation and Pension (C&P). C&P simply applied businessman's common sense approach which requires budget considerations above all others, The Director of Compensation Services announced his "harmless" decision via his denial of a C-123 veteran's claim for Agent Orange exposure illnesses.to the Agent Orange controversy with his denial of a veteran's Agent Orange claim, stating TCDD isn't known to cause harm.  


Fellow veterans - do you draw comfort from C&P's Amazing Miracle Show?

Veterans MUST Personally Review "C" File!

Your "C" file is the complete set of documents regarding your claim. This isn't your VA medical records although many or all of those records may be in the "C" file as evidence. Instead, the VA maintains at each Regional Office the veteran's initial claim, supporting documents, VA records relative to that claim, awards, denials...everything. Pretty much a complete legal gathering of your case.

The problem is, as I have found out in two recent incidents, you can't count on the accuracy of that "C" file unless YOU spend a couple hours turning pages and taking notes.

Yesterday I reviewed my notes from checking out my "C" file a week ago. Back then I thought I'd caught the significant mistakes made by the VA (failure to obtain correct information from the JSRRC, and other errors). But I missed a big one! A game changer that should have been working for me from the get-go.

The local office forwarded my case with a recommendation for approval by the DC folks, where my claim was denied, in part, for lack of medical nexus between Agent Orange and my Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. Problem: The local office failed to forward my cardiac surgeon's letter establishing exactly that nexus!

I didn't catch this on my visit and only noticed it in passing looking over my notes and some of the VA's documents. This missing document can be critical to my claim and I'll notify my VARO to correct their oversight.

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?

Senators Demand VA Briefing re: C-123 Agent Orange

Sen. Jeff Merkley, Oregon

Senator Jeff Merkley (Oregon) yesterday joined with Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina) extending a bipartisan invitation to the VA to once again brief Congress on why the VA is so adamant on preventing legitimate C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims. (late note 12/12/12: the meeting was fruitless with the VA continuing to insist no C-123 veterans will be cared for. A letter from ten scientists and five physicians supporting C-123 veterans' claims was dismissed by VA on the basis that no claims will ever be approved regardless of justification.)

Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina

They'll need your help to make it clear this important veterans issue isn't going away. Mr. William White of Senator Merkley's DC office works veterans affairs, and he's asked each of us C-123 veterans to contact our own senator's veterans affairs staffer to ask that they join the meeting.

Easy. Just call your senators' and congressman's local offices, ask for the veterans affairs staffer, and pass along the invitation from Will White...tell them to contact Mr. White in DC for the meeting time and place, and you're done. Of course, you might want to follow up after the meeting to "encourage" your senator to continue pressing the VA for action! It would also be superb if you were to "educate" your senator's staff about the C-123 exposure issue, and I've prepared the C-123 Agent Orange briefing for them which you can download by clicking HERE.

The 1994 Air Force testing on Patches labeled it "heavily contaminated" on all test surfaces, and "extremely dangerous." Alarming words certainly bad enough to get our attention, and they did! And that's what the inspectors meant so the aircraft was immediately quarantined from all personnel access...not just restoration workers.We correctly understood that if Patches was extremely dangerous when the tests were done in 1994, Patches and her sister C-123s were certainly extremely dangerous when we flew them 1972-1982! And, of course, tests over the next many years continued to confirm these as "a danger to public health" until they were all destroyed in 2010 as toxic waste. So the Air Force's 2012 report was supposed to set the record straight.

Ah, but enter politics, replacing science! The Air Force's 2012 reexamination of C-123 records led them to dismiss the recommendations of the toxicologists who examined Patches, using as an excuse the pretense that the recommendations must have been meant for AF Museum restoration workers only, not to personnel in general. They listed the types of chores the museum restoration workers were likely to perform and disturb Agent Orange residue and implied those tasks were different than what we did, so we couldn't have been affected by disturbing Agent Orange residue.

And the base chief of safety even required the aircraft be opened and aired out for two full days to vent dioxin in the air before personnel entry...anybody remember us doing that at Westover? I don't!

Horse feathers! We did those restoration workers' chores and much more. We did them, not for the days or weeks a restoration effort might require, but for years upon years, and we certainly were exposed thereby to the deadly TCDD component of Agent Orange. Several of our veterans have submitted sworn statements to that fact, and we need more...especially from squadron commanders and NCOICs! Download the statement here and, if you are in agreement, sign and return to me by scanning it (if possible) or snail mail.

DoD records agency torpedoes C-123 Claims!

JSRRC, Alexandra, Virginia

This week I had the opportunity to review my "C" file at the local regional office. Lesson learned...should have done so much earlier! It turns out that the Joint Services Records Research Center, the DoD agency responsible for informing the VA about any veteran's individual PTSD or Agent Orange claim, was totally off base and helped torpedo my VA claim.

In my case, which is likely the same as every other C-123 veteran who has approached the VA for service connection, the VA regional office did a fair job summarizing my claim and boiled down to a single question what was needed from JSRRC: "We are requesting a determination as to whether herbicide (sic) were found as alleged." An accurate answer would be vital, confirming my own description of the situation or leaving it unfounded.

JSRRC has boxes and boxes of supporting information collected in their normal course of activities. They gather unit histories, combat action reports, deployment orders...all that sort of stuff. But for some reason, last year when I was referred to JSRRC for information to support the C-123 exposure issue, they responded in the negative...nothing available, per their chief, Mr. Dominic Baldini.

So I oped to provide Mr. Baldini a large collection of what our C-123 veterans had collected since April 2011. I sent JSRRC flight logs, toxicological tests, contemporary news articles, "buddy letters", expert independent scientific opinions, findings by other federal agencies, photographs, emails and official correspondence. Enough any historian would agree to answer that question"was herbicide found as alleged." Sometimes historian want original source documents, and everything I sent is still readily available today from the various agencies if Mr. Baldini felt he couldn't accept what I sent as official enough for their purposes.

Faced with their mission objective of helping the VA help veterans substantiate claims, the JSRRC completely failed me and all other C-123 veterans. Instead of responding to the VA's inquiry about me with a summation of testing done on Patches and the rest of the fleet, supported by all the official documentation which thus far totals over 300 pages, the JSRRC simply torpedoed  us!

In respond to the VA question, the JSRRC uselessly and in error wrote:

"Unfortunately, the JSRRC in unable to verify or document that an (sic) air crewmembers were (sic) exposed to Agent Orange resulting from Agent Orange residue or dioxin contaminated aircraft or aircraft parts. Please refer to your (VA) website and the VA's determination for this information."

Four problems here which would ruin any C-123 veteran's hopes for a fair deal from the VA:
1. JSRRC did not address the question posed by the VA but instead said it couldn't "verify or confirm" aircrew Agent Orange exposure
2. JSRRC referred the VA back to the VA for supporting information (with the referral back to the VA's C-123 press release from VA Public Health) - ridiculous in the extreme to tell the VA  seeking source documents to read their own (erroneous) web page!
3. JSRRC was incorrect in their answer anyway, as ample information was available at JSRRC to establish aircrew Agent Orange exposure - in particular, the expert scientific opinion from Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director, CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, who stated:

"Given the available information, I believe that aircrew operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD"

Dr. Sinks, speaking on behalf of his agency which is responsible for making such decisions, coudn't have been any clearer. His letter certainly was one item of verifying documentation JSRRC had to offer. His answer should have been adequate.
4. Finally, once JSRRC responded the VA did nothing to challenge  either the failure to address the original VA question, or to challenge the JSRRC response which clearly was in error - the VA had the same documentation from ATSDR and other sources

Another VA Claim Sunk - for inadequate proof!

Observation: We all need to personally visit our Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) to review our records. Discuss with the staffer who will sit with you while going through the records any errors, omissions, whatever. You can request copies which they may be courteous enough to offer, but if not, simply FOIA the entire collection. Remember this "C" file at the VARO is separate from your medical records and you need to make sure both are complete and accurate. In my visit I uncovered three very important issues to address which will help make my case successful...well worth the trip downtown to keep them from letting your application be torpedoed!

This is terrifying. JSRRC and the VA can't be counted on to meet their own mission of accurately gathering and evaluating evidence of our Agent Orange exposure, and then when challenged by veterans simply ignore us!

Harvard Med School Professor Offers Support to C-123 Veterans

Properly confining support to his own area of medical expertise, Dr. David Steensma of Harvard Medical School has reviewed the C-123 Agent Orange exposure issue, and comments:

"I am sensitive to this issue of appropriate expertise in part because one of the frustrations that my patients who are veterans have faced is that their BVA case reviewer is someone who doesn’t truly understand their disorder, such as a lung specialist or an endocrinologist commenting on MDS (or, in the situation you describe, a fish toxicologist reviewing the literature on human exposure to AO).  However if any of the C123 workers develops MDS or AML, I would be glad to write a supporting letter on their behalf."

Thank you, Dr. Steensma. Too often given the complexities of dioxin and the controversal nature of the VA's uninformed handling of veterans' claims, physicians are hesitant to lend their  assistance. So, if indeed you are a C-123 veteran facing a diagnosis  of acute myelodysplastic syndromes or of acute myelogenous leukemia, Dr. Steensma's letter of support can be vital!

JSRRC Refuses to Release Contamination Proof!

Army Refuses to Release Proof of C-123 Agent Orange Exposure! 

Mr. Dominic Baldini,
Chief
Joint Services Records Research Center
7701 Telegraph Road Room 2008
Alexandria, VA  22315-3905

Dear Mr. Baldini,

Earlier this year, and also last year, I wrote to inquire about information JSRRC had concerning the C-123 “Provider” which I flew between 1974-1980. After my first FOIA approach to JSRRC I was told that you had no such information, and I then provided your agency a collection of official Air Force, GSA and other materials dealing with the C-123, in particular between the years 1972-1982 when the airplanes were assigned to the 439^th Tactical Airlift Wing, Westover AFB, Massachusetts.

Yesterday I spent several hours at the Portland Veterans Affairs Regional Office, reviewing my application for Agent Orange benefits. My application was approved by the regional office, but Washington DC headquarters recommended denial on September 25, 2012.

I was very disappointed to learn that the VA had approached JSRRC for any supporting information regarding our aircraft, but your response was in the negative. In fact, all that was provided the VA was a partial quote from their own web site, a conclusion I disagree with and am working with the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee to address.

I don’t understand why our own unit histories aren’t able to provide much of the information requested by the VA. Besides the 439^th Tactical Airlift Wing, the 439^th Tactical Hospital, the 74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron (now 439th AES) and the 901^st Organizational Maintenance Squadron would have detailed C-123 Agent Orange issues in their unit histories between the years 1972-1980. Further, HQ AFMC directed depot-level maintenance regarding the contamination by military herbicides as well as a special toxicological inspection of one aircraft (Tail #362) in 1979, an inspection of great interest throughout our Wing and certain to be in many documents.

Later, in 1994, the National Museum of the United States Air Force conducted a similar exam of the same aircraft, performed by Armstrong Laboratories Brooks AFB, Texas. This should have been made available to all requestors by JRSSC.

May I once again provide you the materials collected from Hill AFB UT, Davis-Monthan AFB AZ, Westover AFB MA, Wright-Patterson AFB OH, and Warner-Robbins AFB GA. Documents are also available from the General Services Administration, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine and other official agencies.

I’m sure you realize that a negative response from JSRRC to a VA inquiry results in the VA’s own finding against the veteran’s claim. Here is your response to the VA’s inquiry about our aircraft and its herbicide history:

 “Unfortunately. the JSRRC is unable to verify or document that air crewmembers were exposed to Agent Orange resulting from Agent Orange residue or dioxin contaminated aircraft or aircraft parts.

Please refer to your (VA) website and the VA's determination for this information.

http://www.publichealth.vagoviexposuresiagentorangeiresidue-cl 23-aircraft”

As you can see, your answer didn't even answer the question VA raised, but improperly gave negative weight to the claims I've made, and carefully document to both JSRRC and the VA.

Mr. Baldini, I understand it is not within your area of responsibility or expertise to confirm or deny the scientific question of dioxin exposure by aircrews, but you could at least have answered the question correctly. Further, JRSSC having been provided official documents addressing the issue of herbicide contamination as well as aircrew dioxin exposure, so it was certainly your responsibility to send them to the VA. Your answer to the VA that no such documentation exists creates an official response that there is no such documentation and the veteran’s claim without foundation. Were you determined to prevent my successful, and just, claim for Agent Orange benefits?

We flew those aircraft and the Air Force has documented the contamination of them. Simple enough, and within the charter of JSRRC to address. Isn't it fair to conclude your response to VA completely ignored the documents you have and served to help prevent approval of my VA application?

Sincerely,

for the C-123 veterans:

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired

Chair          rustysilverwings@gmail.com

www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com

Attach:
Letter, Carter to Baldini
Portland VARC records re: Carter
Assorted USAF documents

They Shall Not Pass: VA Official

1918 French Soldier at Verdun

They shall not pass. This, the famous pledge by French military leaders in World War I as they defended the famous fortress city of Verdun from the attacking German army. Over 200,000 lives were lost, but the fortress city held, and eventually France was victorious.

They shall not pass. This, the true meaning of the infamous quotation below made by the Director of the VA Compensation Services, as he dealt with C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims. In his September rejection of my own VA claim, he challenged science and medicine with his statement:

"In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."

"I don't frickin' believe it" this, the first comment received from an internationally-respected dioxin scientist, reading in shock the director's surprising comment. Believe it, sir. the director wrote his comment in a very formal denial of benefits, addressed to the Portland  (OR) Regional Office of the VA. The director's effort to "correct" countless scientists, physicians, and legislators would seem to be tilting at windmills, but for the fact that the director is the very fellow to make the VA decisions. And I don't frickin' believe it either!

In French, "Ills ne passeront pas/On ne passe pas." They shall not pass. Such determination of French military leadership in 1918 cost the lives of 200,000 troops...a price they were willing to pay. Compensation and Pension seems equally determined with its own "They shall not pass" position prohibiting consideration of C-123 veterans' dioxin exposure claims, but here the suffering this statement costs will be our own...not VA's. 

VA defies the world by denying TCDD is the most toxic of toxins, the most dangerous toxin on earth and a Class 1 carcinogenic. VA's statement tries to prove wrong the collective judgements of medical, scientific, environmental, legal, and legislative leaders. But, however deceptive, this statement stands because, not of its truthfulness but merely because of the director's position. It is yet another nail in our coffin and evidence of the VA's determination to prevent additional veterans turning to it for medical care. They shall not pass!

Not on his watch!

C-123 Veterans Respond to VA Undersecretary Allison Hickey

Voice of the 74th AES, 731st TAS & 901st OMS

Honorable Allison Hickey
Undersecretary for Benefits

The Undersecretary for Benefits Allison Hickey graciously wrote us about the VA's perspective on C-123 veteran exposure to dioxin. We disagree in many places with General Hickey's letter but much appreciate the attention she has given our situation. We ask for reconsideration in our response to her, posted below:

(continued to page 6...click to read further)

We've got it all wrong - Dioxin not harmful! (VA)

In the 25 September 2012 denial of my own application for Agent Orange benefits, the VA Director of Compensation Services (C&P) decided to redefine the fields of toxicology, environmental science, oncology, and others with his conclusion below. Going overboard thus, C&P overruled the Institute on Medicine, World Health Organization, Society of Toxicology, American College of Medical Toxicology, National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress and much of the VA itself when he assured us:

"In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects." C&P

Fellow veterans: do you draw comfort from his assurances, or do you feel C&P offers this amazing statement in this dedication to insure one more veteran is denied medical care at the VA?

If C&P has it right, scientists around the world have it wrong by their long-established conclusion that TCDD is the most toxic chemical known to science. TCDD is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. 

Does C&P have it right in dismissing world-famous toxicologists' opinions that C-123 veterans were exposed to dioxin aboard our airplanes? 

"No adverse effects." This shows the lengths the VA will go to in preventing fully qualified veterans' access to already-overstretched VA medical care.

AFMC Agrees to Release C-123 Agent Orange Documents!

In response to repeated Freedom of Information Act requests, HQ Air Force Material Command Friday agreed to release the materials collected by the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine during their preparation of the C-123 Agent Orange study!

Because the aircraft were all destroyed as toxic waste in 2010, such documentation is all experts have to  consider in evaluating aircrew and maintenance personnel exposure. While it was never actually "Secret" or any other classification, the Air Force Office of Environmental Law did direct in 1996 that all "information be kept in official channels only" so it has been visible since 2011.

By agreeing to release the materials at no cost, the AF didn't use money to build an impossible barrier as did the VA who insisted on $4500 to allow C-123 veterans to review the materials used to prevent our gaining recognition for Agent Orange exposure.

Now we will just have to wait a bit, as the separate request for expedited research and release was denied...none the less, once available we will post on a special Google Docs site for everyone to investigate.

Good news! Now, if only we could get each of our veterans to get supporting statements from their physicians! If you have prostate cancer or any other Agent Orange-presumptive illness, get your doc to write that, in his/her professional opinion, it is as likely to as not" be caused by your Agent Orange exposure aboard the C-123.

A couple of those letters are all we need!