VA Denies Another C-123 Veteran Agent Orange Claim

Honoring its promise made us on February 28, 2013, the director of VA's Compensation Services (C&P) completed denial of my own C-123 Agent Orange service connection claim today. This completes C&P's 25 September 2012 advisory opinion provided the Portland VARO in which he directed opinions from toxicology scientists be disregarded because they weren't physicians.

The same advisory opinion also detailed the VA's one paragraph summary of the official finding of Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Deliberately and evasively avoiding mention of Dr. Sinks' actual finding which stated "I believe that aircrew operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD," C&P appends a sentence to that summary in a manner implying Sinks meant something altogether different: added was "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects" - a conclusion completely opposite Dr. Sinks' finding! VA also conveniently ignored (ignored to better deny the claims!) the ATSDR finding that C-123 veterans now face a 200 times greater cancer risk, thanks to exposure aboard the contaminated airplanes. 

This unscientific and prejudicial editing of another federal agency's finding was discussed in person with C&P's director and his staff on February 28 at his offices, but without comment, modification, retraction, denial or anything...other than his statement that he can't be personally familiar with every piece of VA correspondence over his signature. I understand, but I did bring it to his attention (without response) in November 2012, before it was used to deny my VA claim. While selectively applied to C-123 veterans, thank God VA does not apply that mistake about TCDD to other Agent Orange-exposed veterans.

Agent Orange, and its toxic component TCDD, are generally thought to be somewhat harmful, and considered a human carcinogen and one of the most toxic toxins on the planet. The VA, paying billions in Agent Orange veterans benefits, might consider applying the above paragraph in reconsideration of all those expenses if, indeed, there is no evidence of TCDD being harmful. VA might wish, however, to first run the issue past the Congress, the veterans organizations, the courts, the Institute of Medicine and their own executives. Perhaps...the statement of TCDD being harmless is applicable only in the instance of denying C-123 veterans our claims.

Completely ignored in today's denial of my exposure claim are expert findings in my favor provided by the University of Texas Medical School (Dr. Arnold Schecter), the EPA, the NIH, Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Dr. Fred Bowman (Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department) and other highly esteemed scientists. Ignored completely are the numerous juried scientific articles establishing the TCDD contamination of the C-123, the bioavailability of that TCDD, the routes of exposure as having been dermal, inhalation and ingestion, and dozens of other proofs. Best dealt with by the VA by ignoring them as opposed to acknowledging the fact of the matter...C-123 veterans were indeed exposed to Agent Orange.

VA Exposure Expert

The question of "exposure" is pivotal. The VA utilized its own special in-house extra-legal (even though the issue has already been adjudicated and resolved, and VHA is not free to redefine such things and VBA isn't supposed to approach veterans claims with a VBA predetermination for denial) definition of exposure, being in effect "no C-123 exposure is ever going to be acknowledged." Science, however, more correctly defines exposure as "the contact between a chemical or biological agent and the outer boundary of an organism." Quite simple, and according to the NIH adequate to establish that C-123 veterans were exposed to Agent Orange to the complete satisfaction of the law. 

Typical C-123 Veteran

The law? Forgettaboutit! The Agent Orange Act of 1991 and subsequent modifications, in particular the May 2001 VA promulgation of Title 38 (as detailed in the Federal Register) clearly spell out that VA will treat veterans exposed to Agent Orange outside the Vietnam "Boots on the Ground" group the same as the Vietnam veterans, and without having to establish medical nexus. Thus, given (1) our doctors' proof of Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses, and (2) the Air Force proof of the C-123 Agent Orange contamination, the only way for the VA to shoot down our claims is to (3) deny exposure. Deny, deny, deny.

Today, the VA Compensation Services locked on and fired, just as they promised they would for any C-123 veteran hoping to establish service connection for Agent Orange exposure.

Next step? Board of Veterans Appeals, at least, for any of our members surviving to present their claims after the typical five year waiting period which follows the two years wasted thus far.

VA Covered Up Gulf War Toxin Exposures (part 2)

Whistleblower: VA Withheld Health Studies On Soldiers’ Toxic Exposures (13 Mar 2013)

By: TAMARA LYTLE 

ShareEmail Print

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs suppressed information that shows links between health problems of veterans and the dangers they were exposed to in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf War, according to a whistleblower who testified to a House panel Wednesday afternoon.

Steven Coughlin described an “epidemic of serious ethical problems” in the VA Office of Public Health, where he worked for 4 ½ years as a senior epidemiologist until December.

“If the studies produce results that do not support Office of Public Health’s unwritten policy, they do not release them,” said Coughlin, in testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Oversight and Subcommittee.

“This applies to data regarding adverse health consequences of environmental exposures, such as burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and toxic exposures in the Gulf War. On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible,” he said.

Veterans’ activists have long complained that the VA has been loath to acknowledge connections between veterans’ health problems and the situations they faced in theaters of war. Agent Orange during Vietnam and Gulf War illness are two examples. The connection can make a huge difference for veterans in their benefits from the federal government.

In a prepared statement the VA said, “The Department of Veterans Affairs has a decades long history of conducting world-class research studies that meet accepted and rigorous scientific standards.  Research on the health of Gulf War veterans has been and continues to be a priority for the VA.  The department depends on this research to inform our decisions and guide our efforts in caring for Gulf War veterans.  All allegations of malfeasance are taken seriously and are investigated fully.’’

“The VA agrees with Gulf War veterans that there are health issues associated with service in the Gulf War…In 2010, the Administration recognized nine new diseases associated with Gulf War Illness, reflecting a determination of a positive association between service in the region and those diseases,’’ the VA statement said.

Coughlin was not the only witness venting frustration with the way VA treats health research and treatment.

VA doesn’t have effective treatments for Gulf War Illness, said Anthony Hardie, a Gulf War veteran who suffers from chronic health issues. “…A cabal of federal bureaucrats and contractors work at every step to delay, defer, and deny, and even so far a to obfuscate and refuse to implement laws, policies and expert recommendations,” said Hardie, who sits on the Congressionally-chartered Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, known as RAC.

Lea Steele, an epidemiologist at Baylor University who studies the health of Gulf War veterans, said the VA continues to ignore science and minimize the seriousness of the Gulf War illness impact.   A large study this year of Gulf War veterans, for instance, doesn’t even ask about symptoms from the illness.

“This is a wasteful and inexcusable missed opportunity at best and something akin to scientific malpractice at worst,” Steele said.

Victoria J. Davey, chief officer of public health for the VA Health Administration, said the department was committed to care for all veterans.

“VA intends to continue our ongoing efforts to improve our abilities to provide health care for Gulf War veterans; to better educate our health care providers; and to expand the evidence basis for the treatments we provide for Gulf War veterans, and all veterans,’’ Davey said.

In his testimony, Coughlin, now an adjunct professor of epidemiology at Emory University, claimed:

•   His supervisor told him not to look at data on hospitalizations and doctors’ visits for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan when studying the relationship of their health problems to exposure to burn pits and other inhalation hazards.

•  VA officials at first refused to set up a system to offer intervention for veterans who told surveyors that they had suicidal feelings that they would be better off dead. Coughlin was threatened with disciplinary action by his bosses during the process.  He successfully appealed the decision to higher ups and eventually, mental health professionals were able to follow up with the troubled veterans.

• VA officials arranged for five speakers to brief the medical panel studying Gulf War illnesses with views that Gulf War syndrome is psychiatric “although science long ago discredited that position,” Coughlin said.

• When Coughlin tried to make changes recommended by experts to a study of Gulf War veterans, his supervisors killed the idea by falsely claiming it would cost $1 million to do so, he said.

• VA needs a better system for safeguarding data of studies and making it more widely available to researchers. One database of Gulf War veterans’ family members that was mandated by Congress was lost forever by a computer in Texas, he said.

Coughlin said some of the health research done by VA costs tens of millions but doesn’t serve the interests of veterans. He called on Congress to force change. “In view of the pervasive pattern where these officials fail to tell the truth, even to VA leadership, the VA cannot be expected to reform itself.”

Connecticut Veterans’ Affairs Commissioner Linda Schwartz said the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has long had a problem of conflict of interest in its health studies.

“There is much more effort put into disproving this stuff than dealing with these issues up front,” said Schwartz, who studied Agent Orange and has a doctorate in public health from Yale. “It does a disservice to the veterans and our country.” VA’s research should be done by academic institutions, she said.

The hearing was called to look at the care for Gulf War veterans. Gulf War illness is a chronic illness with multiple symptoms, including muscle pain, fatigue, cognitive problems and rashes, that affects veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. Although it was initially dismissed as psychosomatic, scientists have linked it to a drug given to troops to combat nerve gas and to toxic pesticides.

A $10 million study that Coughlin worked on called the National Health Study of a New Generation of U.S. Veterans looked at the exposures faced by veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than a fifth of those veterans also served in the Gulf War, but the VA has not released the treasure trove of data that could shed light on their health effects from the earlier war. “Anything that supports the position that Gulf War illness is a neurological condition is unlikely to ever be published,” Coughlin said.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colorado, and the top Democrat on the committee, U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Arizona pressed Davey and other officials on why they are taking so long to develop better training for doctors and information for vets about the illness.

“I find the conduct of the VA embarrassing,” Coffman said, before asking the panel of VA officials if any of them were veterans. If there were, “I don’t think we’d be here today” he said, with an emphatic bang of his gavel.

Camp Lejeune Toxin Exposure - Health Care Ok'd

Camp Lejeune Veterans: Health Care for 15 Conditions

February 21, 2013 by Terry Walters

Did you serve on active duty at the U.S. Marine Corps Base at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, from January 1, 1957 through December 31, 1987? You may have been exposed to drinking water contaminated with industrial solvents, benzene, and other chemicals.

The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012provided VA authority to treat Veterans who served at Camp Lejeune for not less than 30 days during the covered period. These Veterans are eligible for enrollment in Priority Group 6 or higher and cost-free care VA health care for any of the following illnesses or conditions:

• Bladder cancer
• Miscarriage
• Breast cancer
• Multiple myeloma
• Esophageal cancer
• Myelodysplastic syndromes
• Female infertility
• Neurobehavioral effects
• Hepatic steatosis
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Kidney cancer
• Renal toxicity
• Leukemia
• Scleroderma
• Lung Cancer

VA Covered Up Gulf War Toxin Exposures

Researcher alleges VA covered up adverse consequences to toxic exposures

Posted by Steve Vogel on March 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm (Washington Post)

A senior epidemiologist for the Department of Veterans Affairs  who resigned in December told a congressional committee Wednesday (March 13, 2013) that the agency has covered up data showing adverse consequences for veterans who were exposed to toxic materials from burn pits and other environmental hazards in Iraq, Afghanistan and the first Gulf War.

Steven S. Coughlin testified that he resigned from the VA’s Office of Public Health in December “because of serious ethical concerns” about the agency’s conduct, which he said included not releasing study results that point to a connection between environmental exposures and illnesses.

“On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible,” Coughlin said in his  testimony to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs’ oversight and Investigations subcommittee.

Coughlin said during his work studying the relationship between exposure to burn pits and asthma and bronchitis among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, his supervisor told him not to look at data regarding hospitalizations and doctors’ visits.

“When I advised him I did not want to continue as a co-investigator under these circumstances, he threatened me,” Coughlin said.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki has directed the Office of Research Oversight to review the allegations, according to the VA.

“Research on the health of Gulf War Veterans has been and continues to be a priority for VA,” the agency said in a statement. “The Department depends on this research to inform our decisions and guide our efforts in caring for Gulf War Veterans. All allegations of malfeasance are taken seriously and are investigated fully.”

During the hearing, several speakers said the VA has been slow to clearly acknowledge research that has validated Gulf War illnesses as a serious medical condition.

“There are many examples large and small of the VA minimizing Gulf War illness,” said Lea Steele, professor of biomedical studies and director of the Veterans Health Research Program at Baylor University.

Victoria Davey, chief officer for the VA’s Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards, told the subcommittee that the department takes the ailment seriously.

“We do not believe it is psychological,” she said.

National Institutes of Health Physician CONFIRMS C-123 Agent Orange Exposure

Dr. Miller

In a letter received by the C-123 Veterans Association today (March 13, 2013), CAPT (Dr) Aubrey Miller stated, "It is my opinion that the scientific evidence is clear. Dermal exposure, including exposure to contaminated equipment or secondary exposure through contaminated clothing, tools, vehicles, etc. could result in absorption that would be problematic. Studies conducted in both humans and animals clearly demonstrate the ability of TCDD to be absorbed through the skin."

Dr. Miller is the Senior Medical Officer of the National Institutes of Health/National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, and is also a public health expert. His comments were the result of inquiries from the C-123 veterans seeking confirmation of our exposure aboard our airplanes. Dr. Miller also referenced the 2012 finding by Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dr. Sinks concluded that aircrews were exposed, and Dr. Miller wrote that, at NIH, "we agree with Dr. Sinks January 25 2012 hazard summary for exposure to this residual TCDD contamination."

Dr. Miller is an acknowledged cancer researcher and toxicologist in the Commissioned Corps of the US Public Health Service. Unfortunately for C-123 veterans, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration on February 28 2013 informed us that other federal agencies, regardless of their authority in the field, will not have their input accepted in evaluating veterans' claims. Only opinions created by the Veterans Health Administration are acceptable. The VHA has since Day One ruled veterans were not exposed, regardless of science, medicine, law, logic or any standard imaginable.

"No" means "no" because they say so. 

New Hampshire C-123 Veteran's Claim Denied

On February 28, 2013, celebrating the anniversary of the ending of the first Gulf War, the Manchester (NH) Department of Veterans Affairs denied a Westover C-123 veteran's claim for Agent Orange exposure. The claim was presented by the New Hampshire State Veterans Council.

Key point: the denial reads "Although you submitted numerous amounts of evidence to support your claim, VA regulations do not allow us to concede exposure to herbicides for Veterans who claim they were exposed to herbicides after the Vietnam war while flying in aircraft used to spray these chemicals." Wow...a whole regulation prohibiting justice for C-123 veterans! Guess these RO experts don't bother reading Title 38 too closely. Wonder where we can read this mysterious "regulation?" Actually, the law and CFRs provide that veterans exposed to military herbicides need only evidence their factual exposure to then seek service connection for Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. As has been demonstrated in the nearby Boston BVA.

This veteran's inclusion of supporting opinions from EPA, NIH, CDC, Columbia University School of Public Health, Oregon Health Sciences University, University of Texas Medical School and other experts only brought the VA's summary "there is no basis in available evidence of record" to dismiss the science which otherwise so clearly proved his case.

Here's the amusing element: "Every attempt was made to verify your exposure to herbicides. However, we were unable to verify your exposure." Right.

C-123 Vets Meet with VA's Tom Murphy - unsatisfactory results!

"Not enough science," Mr. Tom Murphy seemed to say. "For every scientist you can give me saying C-123 people were exposed I'll find another who says they weren't." 

This type of response pretty much sums up the adversarial character of the recent disappointing meeting C-123 veterans had with the VA's Director of Compensation Services at his offices in Washington, DC. on 28 February 2013. Captain Marlene Wentworth NC  (thank you for being there!!!) and I spent an hour with Mr. Murphy, trying to learn why the VA has built a stone wall to C-123 Agent Orange exposure applications. We were grateful that Mr. Murphy and his staff accommodated our late arrival, having thought the meeting was to be at VA headquarters elsewhere.

Not enough science? Interesting. Mr. Murphy said Compensation Services will use that logic to continue denying each veteran's application for service connection, but "only after giving it careful individual consideration, before denying it." Also very interesting.

Asked about the value of the plethora (in the words of the Portland VA Regional Office) of independent medical and scientific opinions, he was completely dismissive. Asked about the weight of the numerous federal agencies who have provided opinions confirming our exposure, he was also dismissive. I asked how many more federal health or science agencies' voices he would need to be persuaded that we approach the VA's threshold of "as likely to as not" and was told no number would be adequate to persuade, as VBA deflects the authority for the VA having said "no" on C-123 claims to their Veterans Health Administration, seemingly the only authority he will recognize. 

Summation: it simply doesn't matter how much solid gold evidence a veteran submits to Compensation Services - claims will continue being denied regardless of merit. VA's legal requirement of "benefit of the doubt" is best summed up from their perspective as "no doubt shall be permitted" and thus no benefit of the doubt will flow.

"Go somewhere else."

And that somewhere is the VA's own Health Benefits Administration, which has already denied any exposure possibility re: C-123 veterans and issued regulations ordering regional offices not to honor claims from C-123 veterans regardless of the the claim's legal, scientific, medical, and every other justification. Still, VHA is where we must turn to have any effect, so my attentions will now be directed to VHA to see how we can work together! And I'll keep calling and emailing for an appointment as I have so many, many times thus far. The VBA physician is a public official and of course, certainly eager to help veterans...and is one herself.

Unfortunately, three time now, VHA has carefully "explained" why C-123 veterans will not receive service connection.

1. there wasn't enough dioxin or it was the wrong kind of dioxin ("dried dioxin")

2. there was no exposure by aircrews to dioxin, because it was dried dioxin

3. the human skin perfectly prevented any dermal exposure - not "enough" dioxin

4. any exposure was "secondary" and not permitted by law (not prohibited, either!)
5. the USAF C-123 Consultative Letter failed to conclude veterans were exposed 

Staff members of Compensation Services explained that denied claims can readily be appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals, so I explained that such appeals, given our age and illnesses, are of interest only to our survivors...the appeals need five years and that totals seven with the initial claim - beyond most of our veterans' life expectancy. Somehow, I feel that they have absolutely no problem with us dying before claims are finished traveling through the VA system. Death before an appeal is heard doesn't ruffle any feathers at Compensation Services.

The killer claims barrier: staff insisted they simply had no authority to permit C-123 veterans' claims because Public Health has already completed a "scientific" review of literature to establish their position against veterans. This was their initial effort to deny claims and was done by "cherry picking" the references to avoid publications which would lead VA to accept our claims. VA made sure not to cite "gold standard" references such as TG 312 and the New York Reentry Standards, and they have dismissed all outside government agency conclusions in our favor as well as universities and other experts - even the VA's own physicians who have weighed in to support the veterans. 

Clearly, VA tells us any and all scientific and medical evidence supporting C-123 veterans' exposure claims is unacceptable. The VA position was authored by the very folks Compensation & Pension has told us to go see, and since they have already ruled against us and can be counted on to do so again, that's why we were referred to them. I'm not sure we have any chance of swaying them one degree off their predetermined course of preventing our claims. So far, VA is quite comfortable ignoring challenges from Congress, the press, other veterans organizations, universities, independent scientists and physicians, medical schools, VA physicians, and even other federal agencies. 

I asked about the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Title 38 and the C.F.R.s which in 2001 had the VA confirming (as reported in the Federal Register) that veterans exposed to Agent Orange outside Vietnam will be treated the same as those in Vietnam, and the clincher response about us is "there was no exposure." Regardless of the science or the facts, the VA will maintain that there was no exposure and therefore no claim approval. It doesn't matter how much we were exposed nor how long we were exposed nor how much damage the exposure caused - VA official policy is that we were not exposed. Got it? Good!

We were told one possible approach would be to have the Institute of Medicine conduct a review of our exposure situation. Perhaps C&P was not aware that was previously promised by the VA and canceled when the AF report was released. Remember the AF report on the C-123? It stated no conclusion could be reached about veterans' exposure and therefore veterans were unlikely to have been exposed. Amazing twist of logic there, right? Anyway, the IOM approach was eagerly accepted by us a year ago and the VA maneuvered away from allowing one. And that would waste another year or two we don't have. We need even-handed consideration of our claims at the Regional Offices!

I reviewed the very satisfactory meeting held the previous day at the Army's Joint Services Records Research Center, and the fact that the JSRRC archivists will now be able to provide responses to the VA with more accuracy regarding C-123 contamination. Mr. Murphy was unimpressed. My impression: unless JSRRC can be used by VA to deny our exposure, JSRRC input will not be evaluated.

C&P was asked if VA would continue denying benefits by claiming that TCDD is actually harmless. The director seemed unaware these official C-123 claims denials about TCDD (Agent Orange) were released over his signature, but I certainly wrote him in November (also without response) to draw his attention to this opinion which contradicts official VA policies. I gather this will continue as one of Compensation Services' tools to deny benefits, but I entertain faint hope VA will look into it for possible correction. 

Writing this on Wednesday morning of March 13, having waited in the area for fourteen days hoping that VHA would graciously provide the appointment that C&P suggested, I grow concerned that we will not have an opportunity to present our case at all. Other VA officials have already dismissed more effective speakers with more acceptable qualifications than I possess - they will not budge from their refusal to allow our veterans access to VA medical care. Whatever proofs or evidence we provide will be swatted aside with disregard for its veracity. 

I was most surprised by one of C&P's staff actually speaking. She explained that there can be no VA acceptance of medical or scientific opinion submitted by C-123 veterans which would otherwise establish our claims. On the various web pages veterans are directed to submit such proofs, but C&P explained that in fact, VA can only consider medical and scientific materials, and conclusions about such materials, from the VA's own Health Benefits Administration. I guess that's why EPA, NIH, CDC, DOD and even my own VA physician's medical opinion lacks value, according to Compensation Services. 

While polite, C&P's director didn't waste a smile on us that Thursday.  I was wasting his day. He didn't waste a dime offering Captain Wentworth and myself a cup of coffee or any such welcoming gesture. He didn't inquire of my health. He didn't waste an unnecessary "welcome" as we sat down together. He didn't waste any effort at helping us understand our situation. He certainly didn't offer anything to help us better seek care for our C-123 veterans, other than to take the problem elsewhere. I was wasting his day. Concerns about my own claim and claims of my friends should have elicited at least some expression of understanding and of guidance from Compensation Services about what we should do.

The director absolutely spared himself any "thank you for your service" thought, word or gesture on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs. So much for the duty to assist. Thank you for seeing us, C&P. And thank you, sir, for your own service.

C-123 Agent Orange Exposure: Confusion? Cover-Up?

Coverup? Simple failure to act? Dereliction of duty? You decide. In any case, decisions about our C-123 veterans' exposure to Agent Orange were made that worked against our health and welfare, and no competent medical officer, legal officer or aircrew member would have made such decisions without full understanding of the impact on veterans already exposed for a decade to the scientifically-confirmed contamination by dioxin on our aircraft.

So...why did official action after official action over the decades combine only to coverup the Agent Orange impact, and nothing worked to get medical information out to the veterans to guard our health? Is this an event handled differently than would be legally possible in a civil setting - without criminal repercussions for the bad actors involved? Do government and military wonks get to cause such harm without legal response? Where are the heroes of American law to set right this evil ?

Here is the history of the vicious affair as we know it. We don't dare start calling it a coverup or we end up on the heap of dismissed and ignored nutters and conspiracy-therory advocates. So, instead let's call it, without question, a tragic affair, with only the C-123 veterans paying the bill. Another thing we know - after two years of struggle, not a single piece of advice, guidance, or information about the C-123 contamination and veterans' exposure has been offered or released by the Veterans Administration.

Are C-123 veterans (individually, not as a population, evidencing Agent Orange presumptive illness) qualified under the law for Agent Orange exposure benefits? Yes. Other than the amount of push-back exerted against C-123 veterans' claims, total effort wasted helping C-123 veterans: Zero. VA Job One: PREVENT ACCESS TO VA MEDICAL CARE.

C-123 Agent Orange History - USAF takes actions to cover-up?	Yes or No:
•Once 1994 tests showed C-123 “heavily contaminated, USAF also decides not to inform exposed aircrews, meanwhile USAF Museum was forced to decontaminate their C-123 as “a danger to public health”	Yes
•In 1996 USAF Office of Environmental Law directed “all information be kept in official channels only” about Agent Orange contamination	Yes
•DOD Agent Orange consultant, USAF AFMC officials, general officers & Air Staff recommended in 2009 all C-123s be destroyed before exposed veterans learned of contamination & applied for veterans benefits	Yes
•In January 2000 all Air Force surplus C-123s ordered sealed, gathered into HAZMAT “quarantine” storage in specially-selected secure remote area of Davis-Monthan AFB to prevent notice by Arizona EPA & $3.4 billion fine	Yes
•USAF Surgeon General concludes in 2012, following C-123 Agent Orange study, better not to notify exposed veterans to “avoid undue distress”	Yes
•Following January 2000 sworn testimony in federal court by USAF toxicologist Dr. Ron Porter that C-123s were “a danger to public health,” USAF avoided advising exposed veterans	Yes
•USAF informed Walt Disney Films of Agent Orange contaminated C-123s bought for movies in 1999 but avoided also informing exposed veterans	Yes
•Entire C-123 Agent Orange airplane fleet ordered destroyed in 2010 as toxic waste, with Hill AFB Public Affairs taking special steps per DOD Agent Orange consultant to avoid notice by public, press, exposed veterans	Yes

•Special Note: In 2012, DOD’s Agent Orange Consultant publically libels dioxin-exposed C-123 veterans “trash-haulers, freeloaders, looking for atax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman."   YES

Friends, imagine if this had been the 20-year track record of a chemical spill at a major US employer. Would CNN's Wolf Blitzer, shown company documents like those above focusing on deliberate steps to prevent notifying exposed employees "to avoid undue distress" consider it a cover-up? Would 60 Minutes have fun with the story?